Privacy of names caution should be applied when identifying 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 deciding whether to include a name, its 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. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a blp may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons /Archive
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the people notable for only one event guideline ( WP:BIO1E ) when compared with this policy ( WP:BLP1e wp:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died. In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event. People accused of crime see also: wikipedia:Notability (events) Criminal acts, and wikipedia:Notability (people) Crime victims and perpetrators This section (WP:blpcrime) applies to individuals who are not public figures ; that is, individuals not covered by wp:wellknown. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do annotated not amount to a conviction. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, essay d include all the explanatory information.
Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; degenerative see Using the subject as a self-published source. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. Subjects notable only for one event Further information: wikipedia:Notability (people) People notable for only one event wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. 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.
In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, although links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See #avoid misuse of primary sources regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects. If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. In a blp or anywhere on outsiders wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history. To reduce the chances of triggering the Streisand effect, use a bland edit summary and do not mention that you will be requesting oversight. People who are relatively unknown "WP:NPF" redirects here. For information regarding newly created pages on wikipedia new Pages feed see wikipedia:Page curation. See also: wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual Many wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.
If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John doe and Jane doe divorced." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. Privacy of personal information and using primary sources see also: Privacy of names With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for.
Biography of, pious, persons (Classic Reprint
In general, do not link to wedding websites that contradict the ireland spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail. "see also" links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must adhere to wikipedia's policy of no original research. Presumption in favor of privacy avoid victimization When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from 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.
Public figures In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and blps should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Example: "John doe had a messy divorce from Jane doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out.
Avoid gossip and feedback loops see also: wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Breaking news 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 a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the wikipedia article to support the original edit. Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced see also: wikipedia:Libel Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or synthesis of sources (see no original research relies. Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under blp can be controversial.
Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear blp violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. Further reading, External links, and see also External links about living persons, whether in blps or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of blps, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a blp may be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of that blp with caution (see #Using the subject as a self-published source ).
Biography of, akbar the Great (Mughal Emperor
C Self-published sources avoid self-published sources never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal summary 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. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources. 2 see #Images for our policy on self-published images. Using the subject as a self-published source further information: WP:selfpub living persons may 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;.
Reliable sources Challenged or likely to be challenged main page: WP:sources wikipedia's sourcing policy, verifiability, says that all"tions and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation ; material not meeting this. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion essay This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. Avoid misuse of primary sources Further information: WP:primary exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism —that every wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Attack pages Further information: wikipedia:Attack pages and wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion G10 Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version. Non-administrators should tag them with db-attack. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.
Biographies of living persons blps must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid : it is not wikipedia's 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 always be considered when exercising editorial. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a blp, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. B, the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. Writing style, tone, bLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources (but keep in mind that depictions of recent events may be unbalanced). Do not use controversial or effusive descriptions unless commonly used by reliable sources.brief
Archives — chora museum
If you have a complaint about a biography of a living person, and you wish to contact the. Wikimedia foundation, see, contact. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any, wikipedia page. A, such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the essay United States, to this policy, and to wikipedia's three core content policies: we must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All"tions and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) 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. 1, users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.