Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:12, 22 April 2006

This page documents an English Wikipedia [[:Category:Wikipedia WP:LIVING WP:BLPs| WP:LIVING WP:BLP]].

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

[[Category:Wikipedia wp:living wp:blps|Biographies of living persons]]

Editors must take particular care with writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity as well as strict adherence to our content policies:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references — particularly about details of personal lives.

These principles also apply to biographical information about living persons in other articles.

Writing style

You should document, in a non-partisan manner, what credible 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. There should not be any tone of either hagiography or hatchet job. Take care not to fall into either a sympathetic point of view or an advocacy journalism point of view.

There should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude. As editors, our writing may have real effects on real lives, and with that power comes responsibility.

Credible sources

Without credible third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution and should probably not be used if the material is negative. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below). If credible sources cannot be found, there may be a problem with the material.

There is no obligation to inform the subject of a biography that you intend to write about him. If you do get in touch with him and he supplies information, only details available in good third-party sources should be used. Adding unpublished details is original research, even if they come directly from the subject.

For example, the New York Times says that John Doe was born in 1955 but John Doe himself tells you this was a mistake and that his year of birth is in fact 1965. The Wikipedia article must reflect the published record, and not what John Doe has told you privately. If a correction is published, this is verifiable and hence usable. Since the claim has been called into doubt, it may be appropriate to write in this case "According to the New York Times, John Doe was born..." along with an appropriate citation of source.

Self-published material as a source

Self-published material written by the subject of the article (for example, a personal website) may be usable if:

The information is relevant to the person'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; that is, it may be used only as a primary source;
There is no reasonable doubt that it was written by the subject.

A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is regarded as unreliable as a source.

Be aware that the use of self-published primary sources is problematic:

The biography may end up packed full of trivia, which will lead to a badly-written article. Some trivia may, of course, be of interest, giving a relevant insight into the subject;
The personal website you believe belongs to "John Doe" may have been set up with malicious intent by another person. Do not use a personal site as a source if there is any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the author;
If the subject reveals a detail and later changes their mind and removes it, it leaves the material in the Wikipedia article without a source;
A quality reference should ideally have had some form of third-party scrutiny, which all non-vanity publishers and newspapers perform to some degree. With self-publishing, there is no critical third-party input.

Presumption in favor of privacy

Public figures

Only details relevant to the notability of the subject belong in the article. If a fact or incident is notable, relevant and well-documented by reputable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If not, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe" — is the "messy" notable, verifiable and important to the article? 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. This is a public figure and there are multiple, credible third-party sources; the allegation may belong in the biography, if it is made clear it's an allegation and not established as fact, linking to the New York Times article as a source.

If writing about a negative incident, redemptive factors should not be overlooked. Strive for balance at all times.

Non-public figures

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of credible, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. However, there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability.

Example: An academic who has a Wikipedia article because of his achievements in physics is alleged to have touched a student inappropriately during a party. She tells her story to the university's student newspaper, and the story is picked up by a satirical magazine writing about sexual relations between academics and their students. No other newspaper repeats the claims, to which the academic has not responded. This allegation should probably not be placed in the article — it is not relevant to his notability, he is only marginally notable outside his work, it originates with a single witness and unsworn testimony, the sources are not particularly credible, no mainstream source has picked up the story and his life may be seriously affected if the allegation is spread.

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Privacy of birthdays

Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for many famous people, but including this information for some 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 more common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt of the notability of the person in question, it is best to err on the side of caution for adding specific birthdates. It may be advisable to simply list the year of birth rather than the exact birthdate. Some things to consider when adding an exact birthdate are:

Has the person in question had mainstream media coverage?
Has the person in question taken action intended to increase their notability? (Given interviews, been a guest on a talk show, etc.)
Has the person in question's date of birth been published by a reputable and public source?

If the answer to all of the above questions is no, it is advisable to leave out the exact birthdate of the individual in question.

Libel and defamation

(Note that definitions vary between jurisdictions. See Slander and libel.)

Defamation: false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions.
Libel: a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person.

Potentially libellous or defamatory statements not cited and sourced to verifiable sources should be removed.

Criticism of a person is not libel or defamation. Making false accusations is. As editors cannot make value judgments in respect of the truth of falseness of a statement made against a person, providing verifiable information is crucial in such cases.

Malicious editing

Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing a point of view, ask for credible third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors

Many persons that are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia about them are likely to have detractors, opponents and/or critics. Their views can be presented in a biography providing that these are relevant to their notability, based on reputable sources and in a manner that does not overwhelm the article. Note that for each detractor a public figure has, this person may have thousands that do not share these detractor's views and by default their views will not be represented in the article. We should be careful not to give a dispropotionate voice to detractors, opponents or critics as you could be representing a minority view as if it were the majority view.

Negative information related to a person's notability should be mentioned if solidly verifiable, e.g. plagiarism by an artist, fraud by a scientist, doping use by a sports person, etc. Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence from reliable sources regarding the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, or other generalizations.

Articles about ideologies, beliefs or policies by their nature warrant criticism, whereas a section of criticisms of an individual is almost certain to result in contention. For example, to have a criticism section in the article Communism is encyclopedic, but a critique of communism on the article of each individual communist figure is not. The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics.

Wikipedia is not a place for editors to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs or their orientations, nor the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view. Strive to produce an NPOV article all sides can live with, if not love.

Appropriate categories

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so neutral point of view needs particular attention. Make sure all categorizations are relevant, verifiable and obvious from the article content. For example, add only people convicted of a crime in a court of law to Category:Criminals, and make sure the conviction was not overturned on appeal. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people.

Dealing with articles about yourself

Finding a Wikipedia article about yourself may be distressing, especially for those of minor notability unused to being written about — the Foundation gets a lot of mail about this. Wikipedia works differently than other written works — anyone can edit, even anonymously, and the information gets spread far and wide.

It would probably be a good idea to identify yourself on the article's talk page with the {{ Notable Wikipedian}} notice.

You should not write about yourself, since objectivity on the subject is hard — but you can assist by providing references, by challenging unsourced statements, and by assisting other editors. The appropriate place for such communication is the talk page of the article concerned. Although you might want to draw attention to any concerns by leaving a brief note on the talk pages of particular editors, lengthy discussions anywhere else than the article talk page will likely go un-noticed.

Persistent problems with other users should be dealt with through the dispute resolution process. No legal threats should be made; quicker results will be obtained in most cases by keeping one's cool and getting help from more experienced users.

Wikipedians who notice attempts by an article's subject to correct information should remember to not bite the newbies and assume good faith. Offers to help with the Wikipedia process and etiquette may be much appreciated.

If a Wikipedia article about yourself does not exist, it is not recommended that you write one — leave it for someone else to consider you notable.

See also: Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Relevant Arbitration Committee ruling

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing mercy 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)

Legal issues

Any Wikipedia editor who makes a legal threat on the website is likely to be blocked from editing until the legal matter is settled, and that includes the subjects of biographies who object to their article's contents. See Wikipedia:No legal threats.

If you are the subject of a biography and you have a legal concern, 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
Email: board "at" wikimedia.org (replace the "at" with @)

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

Contact data

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 == Credible sources ==
 Without [[credible]] third-party sources, a biography will violate [[Wikipedia:No original research | No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability | Verifiability]].
-Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with care, particularly if the material is negative. If credible sources cannot be found, there may be a problem with the material.
+Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution and should probably not be used if the material is negative. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below). If credible sources cannot be found, there may be a problem with the material.
-There is no obligation to inform the subject of a biography that you intend to write about him. If you do get in touch with him and he supplies information, only details available in good third-party sources should be used. Adding unpublished details is [[Wikipedia:No original research | original research]], even if they come directly from the subject. (Though a note on the article's talk page may be appropriate.)
+There is no obligation to inform the subject of a biography that you intend to write about him. If you do get in touch with him and he supplies information, only details available in good third-party sources should be used. Adding unpublished details is [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]], even if they come directly from the subject.
-: For example, the [[New York Times]] says that John Doe was born in 1955 but John Doe himself tells you this was a mistake and that his year of birth is in fact 1965. The Wikipedia article must reflect the published record, and not what John Doe has told you privately. If a correction is ''published'', this is verifiable and hence usable.  Since the claim has been called into doubt, it can be appropriate to write in this case "According to the New York Times, John Doe was born..." along with an appropriate citation of source.
+:For example, the [[New York Times]] says that John Doe was born in 1955 but John Doe himself tells you this was a mistake and that his year of birth is in fact 1965. The Wikipedia article must reflect the published record, and not what John Doe has told you privately. If a correction is ''published'', this is verifiable and hence usable. Since the claim has been called into doubt, it may be appropriate to write in this case "According to the New York Times, John Doe was born..." along with an appropriate citation of source.
 === Self-published material as a source ===
+Self-published material written by the subject of the article (for example, a personal website) may be usable if:
-Self-published material (for example, a personal website) may be usable if:
 * The information is relevant to the person'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; that is, it may be used only as a primary source.
+* It does not involve claims about third parties or about events not directly related to the subject; that is, it may be used only as a primary source;
+* There is no reasonable doubt that it was written by the subject.
-A blog or personal website written by the subject — so long as there is no reasonable doubt that the subject is in fact the author of the website — may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is regarded as unreliable as a source.
+A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is regarded as unreliable as a source.
-Be aware that the use of [[self-publishing | self-published]] primary sources could be problematic:
+Be aware that the use of [[self-publishing|self-published]] primary sources is problematic:
 * The biography may end up packed full of trivia, which will lead to a badly-written article. Some trivia may, of course, be of interest, giving a relevant insight into the subject;
 * The personal website you believe belongs to "John Doe" may have been set up with malicious intent by another person. Do not use a personal site as a source if there is any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the author;
 * If the subject reveals a detail and later changes their mind and removes it, it leaves the material in the Wikipedia article without a source;
-* A quality reference should ideally have had some form of third-party scrutiny, which all non-[[vanity press | vanity]] publishers and newspapers perform to some degree. With self-publishing, there is no critical third-party input.
+* A quality reference should ideally have had some form of third-party scrutiny, which all non-[[vanity press|vanity]] publishers and newspapers perform to some degree. With self-publishing, there is no critical third-party input.
 == Presumption in favor of privacy ==