Wikipedia talk:Autobiography/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Neutrally written A/B example

Considering how many attempts at A/B have been done on here (otherwise this guideline would not exist), has there been even one where someone has pulled off one that came reasonably close to neutral and seemed interested in working with the WP community to make it encyclopedic (and hence had the humility)? If so, what sort of reaction came from the WP community to them? Curiosity questions. mike4ty4 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you get banned?

for writing and editing an autobiography even if you have good intentions on wanting to make it satisfy the Wikipedia policies and do not egotistically want to create vanity, and are willing to work on becoming aware of and reducing your biases? mike4ty4 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot get banned unless it gets deleted and your frequently recreate it, this is what could get you banned: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JetLover (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 August 2007

So if you throw in the towel after the first attempt fails (ie. don't persist with it) then you're off the hook. mike4ty4 07:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Article on Elsewhere Published Autobiographies

I was actually looking for guidelines on creating articles on already published autobiographies. Could somebody either create a disambiguation page or else some other means of directing people looking for information about notable written autobiographies? Please? Perhaps under Wikipedia:Books? Thanks in advance. Cuvtixo 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality TV star noteability guidelines

I've just created a seperate page proposing guidlines for noteability of Reality TV contestants and if they should have their own articles. I did this due to the mass number of articles being created and deleted on these subjects in recent months, and confusion among editors if they are in fact noteable or not. You can read this here. All edits and comments on the talk page are welcome. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 18:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

How is this a problem?

I saw this:

"Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography and there are many pitfalls."

But why is it bad to take on the difficulty and do the hard work to create such an autobiography, anyway? If someone really wants to pull it off neutrally that should be commended, not slammed. I think what should be emphasized are the pitfalls, especially unconscious biases. mike4ty4 06:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been 3 months and I haven't heard any reason or explanation? I'd really like to know, please. mike4ty4 (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Everybody Biased?

Could somebody please further verify why writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is, to many, almost considered a sin? If we are deleting rather constructive articles on Wikipedia because some people believe these are bias because it was self created, then why don't we deleted every article on Wikipedia? Let's face it it is impossible to create a 100 per cent unbiased article on Wikipedia, regardless whether you are the creator or not! Shouldn't the article be judged upon it's content as apposed to the neutrality in which the article should hold? If I were to write an article upon myself, truthfully and honestly, are you here to tell me that another person who wrote the same article is not as bias, if not more bias? I believe that Wikipedia should present the facts, however maybe it is a thought that it is not such a sin to express an opinion, bias or not, as long as it is sensible and relevant should it not be included. Wikipedia is commonly used as a reference point and, although they hate to admit it, to inform the public, almost like a news service. Although Wikipedia and many Wikipedians are reluctant to accept that Wikipedia is used almost as a news service and a search engine and not such the encyclopedia it once was. With this in mind is it not sensible, for the interests of the people who regularly read Wikipedia for these reasons, to express the odd safety advice opinion ect? Paraside 09:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize if my grammar and spelling are not 100% as I was a bit rushed when writing this comment. 09:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, this is a guideline, not a policy, so there may be exceptions -- note the guideline tag itself: "is a guideline... should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". The purpose, at least the way I understand it, is that even unintentional bias may exist, and to warn the user away from this common source of biased articles to help minimize the workload on the Wikipedia community in both a) convincing the user they have a bias and b) straightening out whatever biased thing they may have posted. Also, I've never heard of anyone being "busted" for a "WP:AUTO violation" alone -- there is usually often some neutrality, notability, accuracy, etc. problem with the article that leads to the invocation of the guideline, and often they persist in it. If the article did not have such a problem, or the problem is well-corrected either by the author or the author does not object to a third-party correction, it often just goes away as a non-incident. mike4ty4 (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Putting Sources as FootNotes in Article About me?

Someone else created an article about me Carol Moore that had a lot of nonsense in it. First time I started editing, I didn't read guidelines and someone quickly reverted my changes. Then I read guidelines and took out non-sourced puffery and put in a couple footnotes. Then someone tried to delete article but a couple people spoke up for it Then I left a whole bunch of sources on my talk page, waiting til someday someone cared enough to put them up as information or references. No one has.

Now someone has put {{Importance|date=October 2007}} and

on the page and I'm wondering if it would be ok for me to just put references (from online articles) on these accurate statements made about me in the article I'm ambivalent about the article remaining on, but as long as it is there, might as well make sure someone - even me - puts it up to wiki standards! :-)

Carol Moore 23:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Hearing no response soon I am going to assume people don't have a problem with my merely adding references to statements already on the page. ;-)

Carol Moore 00:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Discuss it on the talk pages, then, to find out what the problems with the content itself really are, and be willing to admit a problem if one happened. Doing this not only may help reveal any unconscious biases you may have had but were not aware of, but also will help build your reputation with the Wikipedia community as well. mike4ty4 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! I did do that. Eventually put in a bunch of references. And another editor came along and took off two of the three relevant templates. As long as article is there might as well be accurate and fleshed out with references. :-) Carol Moore 20:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Daniel Vovak

Would anyone like to help me out with the article on Daniel Vovak. It was created and has been continually edited and updated by the subject himself. While the subject may be (marginal) notable, the fact that he has such a detailed and long article is probably a reflection that he wrote it himself... nevermind the fact that once I start to edit it I'm sure the subject will revert many of my changes, I just don't seem to know where to being. Any advice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keycap (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes Use this template you can put up on the top of the page. Then describe problem on page.

{{Autobiography}} Carol Moore 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Why is it bad?

Since anything on Wikipedia can and will be edited mercilessly, why can't I just post an autobiography and then let it go, and let the WP community mutilate it or even just delete it altogether? Although I wouldn't post one since I don't think I have anywhere near the notability that would be required, I'm just saying... mike4ty4 (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• You can post an autobiography, and many people do; almost all get deleted because they don't meet the notability requirements. It is discouraged (a) to avoid wasting everyone's time, (b) because if you are the only one interested enough to write your biography, that's probably a good indication that you aren't really notable, and (c) because it can be an unpleasant experience to post your autobio, proudly invite your friends to see it, and find it has been deleted as non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AUTO and the Constitution

I believe that WP:AUTO ("Creating or editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged" &c &c) is in direct violation of Amendment I to the United States Constitution, as it prevents persons from creating an article about themselves (or editing one if it has already been created), which is an expression of speech and cannot be blocked unless it violates libel laws in the person(s)' country(ies) of residence.

CJ Miller. (^{That's my name.}_{Don't wear it out.}) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I don't agree with AUTO for other reasons, but the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution do not apply to private entities. They apply to the Federal (and through incorporation the State and Local) government. Wikipedia has no legal obligation to provide a medium for your message. Cigarette (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Autobiography

I think the article Lee Neville may be an autobiography. I found a review of a play he'd been in which wasn't particularly positive and updated the article citing it, but the editor that has been doing most of the work on the article just removed it without explanation. Could someone with more experience of this take a look. Thanks. 78.86.195.14 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How do they find them so fast?

It seems that autobiographies are spotted out within seconds...how the hell do they do that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heesoopooh (talk • contribs) 13:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• All new pages are scanned by experienced editors in the (informal and un-organised, but effective) "New Pages Patrol." Only a small proportion are immediately suitable, most are tagged for improvement or for deletion, and suitable messages sent to their authors. JohnCD (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:YOURSELF

I would love to have a shortcut WP:YOURSELF pointing to Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating_an_article_about_yourself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So

So autobiography is another wiki-criterial below the personal criteria and temporal mood of the wiki-cops and/or any disgusting nerd. Creepy. --201.222.144.8 (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)--201.222.144.8 (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is good.

Hi.

I saw this: "Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography and there are many pitfalls."

But what's so bad about doing the hard work to achieve the "difficult" task, anyway? That doesn't seem so right... How about some other, better reasons, like unconscious biases that you might not notice no matter how hard you work, time-wasting of other editors, etc. mike4ty4 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

About the Strends

Is this an example of why you shouldn't write autobiographical articles, or is it vandalism? Gotophilk (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change

My experience is that there are numerous problems with autobiography, and presenting opinion as fact is only one of many. But it's the only thing mentioned in the bullet list of the guideline. It's actually fairly easy to deal with when the violation is this obvious. What I've found more problematic are instances of undue weight or the (conscious or unconscious) inclusion/omission of certain facts. Often an autobiography is written by somebody seeking to advance their career, their political ambitions, or their social status; so the lead sentence is essentially a misguided assertion of notability. For instance, they might introduce themselves as a fiction writer, when in fact the minimal news coverage they've received is as a member of the school board involved in a controversial decision.

I propose changing the following text:

“ People will write overly positively about themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person). ”

to something more like this:

“ People writing about themselves often introduce biases, sometimes unintentionally. This may come in many forms: presenting opinions as facts; structuring the article in a way that places undue weight on certain aspects of their career; omitting undesirable facts, or inflating the importance of others; adopting a tone that is humorous and unencyclopedic; etc. ”

Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. Especially with the mention that it is not necessarily intentional as not everything is done in bad faith. mike4ty4 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Three autobiographies

There's a case, not entirely hypothetical, with an editor who wrote 3 separate autobiographies of himself (2 on different personas, one on a small group he belongs to). The problem with dealing with this is that in any serious discussion inevitably you run into difficulties with WP:Outing. Perhaps WP:Auto could have a paragraph on "If you write an autobiography you might be outed in deletion discussions." Controversial, I know, but how do you discuss 3 autobiographies by one person without outing? Smallbones (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems in an article about you

Since I'm now working the quality mail formerly recommended as the "simplest" approach there, I've been fairly bold in revising this section. It really isn't the simplest approach, since it can take quite a long time and since OTRS volunteers are (as I read) only supposed to implement changes under certain circumstances. As I understand it, if the question is one of consensus, we're not supposed to implement it through off-wiki conversation. Hopefully the new language I've put in place will seem satisfactory to all. It is a bit redundant to the section immediately above, but I'm afraid that's necessary, as people will read the section that they think applies to them and will not necessarily refer to others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This needs more teeth

There are no good reasons for an editor to create an article about themselves or their company. The pitfalls with this are outlined well in this guideline. But it needs to be more than a guideline and it needs to have more teeth. Instead of autobiographies being "strongly discouraged", they should be a criteria for speedy deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The subject of the autobiography might be plainly notable and the autobiography might comply perfectly with all of the relevant policies. James500 (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable corrections

Currently WP:AUTO#IFEXIST states "Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. (Note it on the talk page.)" Does this not encourage people to replace unverifiable information with other unverifiable information? If an article contains a fact is incorrect and unsourced, shouldn't it be removed rather than the subject coming along and adding what they know? If we have something that is sourced, but that the subject says is incorrect, we need another source to back up their version, since we are interested in verifiability, not truth. I therefore can't see why we should have this sentence in the guideline. I propose removing this sentence, or replacing it with "Similarly, you should feel free to remove mistaken unsourced or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. (Note it on the talk page.)" Smartse (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it as no one has replied. Smartse (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I came here interested in that sort of issue, and I think both these versions are less than ideal. For one thing there is no emphasis on referencing. In fact article subjects are often in the best position to know where the RS are, & should be encouraged to add references to existing (or self-corrected) material that is uncontentious. There should also be warning against copyvios from faculty bios etc, since their first thought is typically to cut and paste from an existing source. Ideally all such edits should be mentioned in the talk page, with diffs if they know how to do this. Whether or not stuff is unreferenced (and how close to the bit removed does the reference need to be?) removals should always be noted on the talk page unless libellous, as this is where most serious problems actually start. I don't myself think that there should be a blanket discouragement of the addition of verifiable non-contentious basic info on career, publications etc, which is very often what is added. Sometimes they add too much, or more than an independent editor would bother to, but that's no great issue. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Submitting Photos/media

Currently this article states: "If you do not like the photo, you can help Wikipedia by contributing a good photo under a suitable free content license. If you have a promotional photo you are willing and able to release under such a license, that's ideal for us and you." It links to the free content page which explains various free content licenses, but it doesn't cover submitting photos or other media by the authors of that media or individuals covered. Is there a good page/referece/policy that we can point to on a simple step-by-step how-to? I talk to a few notable people who don't have photos on their pages and want to encourage them to submit them, but I am unaware of something I can point to in order to make it easy for those who simply would want to submit and release something for use, but don't want to become full blown wikipedia editors, or don't have the technical skills to do so. Thanks. Centerone (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

On a more positive note, can we add a section encouraging subjects to provide images of themselves, if we have none, or if the image we have is only fair use or not good quality; with a link to a page having more detail on how to do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I found it. I had searched for the word "image", so have edited the wording to include that. I still think we need to link to a simple page advising people how to provide an image, as noted above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Spinners article

I would like to point out that the dates of birth for Hughie Jones and Mick Groves are in fact listed incorrectly as it was Hughie Jones who born on 21 July 1936 and Mick Groves on 29 September 1936. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.104.237 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. However you could have corrected the error yourself; see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error. Graham87 03:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose where?

It says, "The proper way to get your own writing about yourself in if you really think you can meet the inclusion criteria and are willing to accept having a neutral, non-promotional article is to make a proposal containing the text you want" Where should this proposal be made, Articles for creation? Superm401 - Talk 18:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)?

Yeah, articles for creation is probably the only suitable place. I've added a mention of it. Graham87 01:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You do not have the right to not be embarrassed

The guideline should explain that removing content merely because it is embarrassing is not acceptable. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Any relevant and reliably sourced information can (and probably will) be included in a Wikipedia biography. I've just been involved in a content dispute where an editor, claiming to be the subject of the BLP, repeatedly removed all mention of a former spouse. Roger (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody have an opinion about this? Roger (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

While removing content solely because it is embarrassing isn't acceptable, removing content "because it's embarrassing" is often really an undue weight claim, a WP:PRIMARY claim, WP:DOB, WP:NPF, or some other claim that is legitimate under Wikipedia policy. It's common in BLP arguments for people to justify the keeping of all sorts of information in BLPs on the grounds that it is accurate, even if it falls under a policy that allows removal of accurate information. Having the guideline say that you can't remove embarrassing material would encourage this misconception.

If someone is a relatively unknown public figure under WP:NPF and the information about their spouse is true but not relevant to their notability, all mention of that spouse should be removed. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Tags about self written articles

There used to be a tag that would go on articles obviously written by the subject. And a CAT that would add them to such a list. Can anyone help me find that tag and CAT ? -Sticks66 03:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See Template:Autobiography and Category:Autobiographical articles. Graham87 10:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx. I get that the CAT is a hidden one that doesn't appear on the page, but how do you put the offending article into the Category ? -Sticks66 11:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Tag it at the top with {{Autobiography}}, using the code {{autobiography|date=February 2013}}, or whatever the current month is. Graham87 12:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Userspace

This is a topic that I'm fairly ignorant about. Is it appropriate to write an autobiographical article about oneself in one's userspace, as has happened at User:Zala Chandrakant? Thank you, Toccata quarta (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It depends if they are (or have been) a regular contributor to Wikipedia. In the case you've linked, I'd say give it six months to a year and if the user hasn't made any significant contributions by then, nominate their user page for MFD. Graham87 15:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation from one language to another?

If some information (or an entire biography) exists in one language, but not another, is it permissible for the subject of the page to translate the content from one language page to another? And would it be okay to translate a page from English into all the languages Wikipedia supports? Mjs (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea, for several reasons:

• Each Wikipedia (English, German, etc.) has its own notability criteria.
• How will you be doing this translation -- I hope not via computer translation!
• Ideally all articles, but especially BLPs, should have someone watching and caretaking them. Will you really be doing that in every language? And even if you are, if you're the only person doing so -- for your own article -- that's really inappropriate.
• It's a form of spamming. I honestly can't comprehend the chutzpah to assume all of humanity urgently needs to know about him or her, when no one else in each particular language has bothered. As I love to quote:

Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797)

Let others show an interest in you and create the article themselves. They're certainly free to draw on existing articles in other languages when they do so.

EEng (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Do we really strongly discourage people from writing about themselves?

I frequent WP:Pages needing translation into English, and sometimes translated articles I find listed there. But I refuse to translate articles written by people about themselves (as well as WP:COI articles). But I find that others are willing to go right ahead and translate autobiographies and COI articles. To me, "strongly discouraged" means at the very least that we don't facilitate the presence of the articles on Wikipedia. But if Wikipedia has not even one substantive guideline enjoining editors from this enabling, encouraging behavior, then we aren't really discouraging anything, let alone "strongly". In that case, we should probably stop making the false assertion that we are, and in addition might as well dispense with the toothless {{uw-autobio}} and {{uw-coi}}.

That's a blunt statement of my assessment of the situation as I've observed it. What do you all think? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In the case of a translated article it's not necessarily clear that it is an autobiography. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Interpretive question re. "proposal"

I was re-reading WP:YOURSELF and had a question: what is the meaning of "proposal" in the sentence "The proper way to get your own writing about yourself into Wikipedia... is to make a proposal at Articles for creation containing the text you want, instead of just putting it into the encyclopedia directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion". There are, I think, two plausible readings of the sentence:

1. potential autobiographers should create a draft, which will be reviewed by Articles for Creation reviewers once submitted. This interpretation meshes well with context, since drafts, being in the "Draft" space, aren't really "in the encyclopedia" in the typical sense of the word. Further, reviewers often leave comments on drafts and there are feedback mechanisms at AfC, which could be the "consensus through discussion" referred to.
2. potential autobiographers should post on one of the Articles for Creation talk pages with details of a proposed autobiography, following which there is discussion with the AfC community. If consensus in favour of the article is reached, then the autobiographer could create the draft, which brings us back to reading 1. This overall interpretation aligns a bit better with the traditional notion of consensus and discussion on Wikipedia, but it comes at the cost of adding a second step into the process.

I'm inclined to prefer the first reading of "proposal", given that imposing a high-level discussion as to whether the draft should exist sounds like a lot of extra work. However, in either case, I propose that the wording of the sentence in issue be tweaked to better reflect the reading we agree upon.

I welcome any other opinions and feedback from contributors to this page. I'll mention this at Articles for Creation (where I do some work) so that other editors can weigh in too. Thanks! /wia /tlk 15:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe it to be a legacy instruction from the Requested Articles concept. Today we "allow" the creation of autobiographies at WP:AFC. though very few folk have the skill to be neutral about themselves, and it wastes a load of time trying to explain to them that they just are to going to make it here. They also get rather offended. Fiddle Faddle 16:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The "second reading" will simply get nowhere at AFC. We have no interest in discussing potential/possible/wished for/hypothetical drafts - we review submissions of drafts that someone has already written. We do not deal with article "requests" at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems we are all on the same page here. I propose that we amend the wording of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to reflect this. How about something like "The proper way to get your own writing about yourself into Wikipedia... is to create a draft at Articles for Creation containing the text you want, instead of just putting it into the main namespace directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion"? /wia /tlk 05:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the current "highly discouraged" wording is right on. We really don't want people writing about themselves, and encouraging them to do so at AfC is just going to increase the AfC load. LaMona (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I sometimes feel that by "discourage" we mean only "we use the word 'discourage' a lot", while in practice we don't discourage at all, beyond observing the guidelines applicable to any article. The bottom line is that people aren't supposed to write Wikipedia articles to their own ends; WP:AGF notwithstanding, when people create articles about themselves, I consider it extremely unlikely that they are doing so as an altruistic gift to the world. Looking for ways to simplify work-arounds they can use to achieve their own ends indirectly after we have already told them we don't want them to directly isn't a goal I support. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona and Largoplazo! I concur regarding the current wording "highly discouraged". Given that (and let me know If I am misreading your comments), is removal of the entire sentence about "proposals" something you'd support? /wia /tlk 17:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I support removing that whole paragraph, the one beginning "The proper way to get your own writing about yourself into Wikipedia ...". There is no proper way to do it! If a would-be autobiographer figures out that route on his own, fine, but we shouldn't be drawing the map. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"in at least four instances have been listed for deletion by their original authors"

Make that at least five. I have one on my watchlist from September 2016. WP:PUFFERY, nominated for WP:AFD - but I discovered that the author had curiously failed to mention that allegations against him of scientific malpractice had come to the attention of and been investigated by committees of both U.S. Houses of Congress. {{db-author}} removed three times, by my count. Link available on request. Narky Blert (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it to "several" because that's not as liable to need updating. Graham87 09:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

suggested change re criterion for editing own bio

Where it says:

"Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy."

I would suggest removing the words "and serious". If even a minor violation of the policy is nonetheless clear-cut, then is this not sufficient reason to allow the subject to remove it? For example, why shouldn't a subject be able to remove some incorrect fact which is not obviously damaging but is still demonstrably false? --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No real support, no real opposition. Consensus seems to be that there is no strong reason for this change, and without a positive consensus to do so, I don't feel comfortable closing this as moved. At the same time, there's no firm consensus against it. No consensus defaults to this staying at the current title. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Autobiography → Wikipedia:Autobiographies – To be consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Train. Hope you're well. Is this move because of any particular problem or simply because of a style standard? If the latter, there's no need to do it. There's no problem that seems to be existing because of this. Thanks. Lourdes 04:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not understanding the true "why" for this, considering that the page's current title does not contain any words after "Autobiography". Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. A very minor and simple change. I understand that some may feel it retundant, but I agree with OP. I also think that the article is about "Autobiographies [on Wikipedia]" rather than "[a/the] Autobiography". Support for both article clarity and consistency. Also reccomend we don't think to much and just do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaioa (talk • contribs) 11:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

request

Sir i want to create my bio data on Wikipedia like other person Riyan khan (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Riyan khan: You can't. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography to find out why not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

In the name of all that's holy...

...can we have indefinite semiprotection of this page and its talk? I'm tired of reverting people's lame resumes. EEng 20:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:RFPP

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my post was aimed at admins who understand that WP is not a bureaucracy. So could some admin with common sense and who happens to be watching review the history and decide whether indefinite semiprotection of this talk page -- the page itself is already semiprotected -- is warranted? There's something somewhere causing people to think this is a place to post their autobiographies, and this has been going on for years. It's hard to see what's lost by not allowing IPs and unconfirmed accounts to post here. EEng 22:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

As an admin who watches this page, I'm meh about this. Yeah reverting resume posters is annoying, but they're not *that* common (at time of writing, the last 50 edits go back to December last year), and this page acts as a sort of honeypot for stupidity. Graham87 01:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The honeypot theory is interesting, but really we have no way of knowing. What we do know is that every single one of the last 50 edits [2] is some fool posting his autobio, sinebot signing it, or someone reverting it; there's not a single productive contribution. It's not a big deal, but I suggest we try protection. EEng 02:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Not quite every single one; see the above section. By honeypot, I meant that it would attract users whose contributions might need to be looked at for other reasons. It'd be interesting to hear more opinions though. Graham87 03:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I misunderstood your honeypot point to be that by attracting idiots here we save other pages from being targeted. But now I understand. So maybe anytime anyone posts here some bot should revert all their other contributions. I like it! EEng 03:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I create my auto biography on Wikipedia

How Kiran Sagar DC (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kiran Sagar DC: You don't. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography to find out why not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to Create and my own Biography. How do I write Rajput Sachin (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography to find out why not. --Chewings72 (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

How can i write my own biography Bharatswagger (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The answer appears twice immediately above your comment. Mindmatrix 13:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Are Writer inboxes necessary?

I was thinking of putting a writers inbox for the biography of E. W. Hornung. Is it necessary or it considered something as a non essential so I don't get into an accidental edit war with User:SchroCat. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

As there is a discussion on the article talk page, that is a more appropriate place to have a discussion, rather than on a page unconnected with the article (see MOS:INFOBOXUSE for the guideline). You have not yet answered the question I raised last time, so I am not sure on what grounds you think it necessary at present, or why you would deliberately want to start an edit war. - SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Given the inflation of auto-biographies on the Wikipedia, I wonder if it would be advisable to explicitly identify such articles as such. Disputes about auto-biographical articles usually center on notability, but clearly the major problem is the question of neutrality. If there is no policy to automatically delete biographies created by the subject of the author, shouldn't there at least be a way to indicate, in the article itself since many readers do not look at talk pages, to the potentially unsuspecting reader that the biography was self-initiated. In summary, I am proposing that auto-biographical content be very visibly identified as such, if it is allowed to exist in the Wikipedia. This would be a solution that there seems to be much wasted effort arguing notability with the authors of such content. Amazingly the authors of such articles never seem to be embarrassed at having to argue for their own notability semi-publicly, when it is obvious that the best evidence of notability is that one does not need to create one's own biography in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.12.45.75 (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC) N.B. The above proposal was written before I realized that the AUTO and COI tags exist, and should therefore be deprecated. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of AUTO and COI tags

I see now that there is already a way to do this, using the COI and AUTO tags. These tags should be used more frequently. Category:Autobiographical_articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.12.45.75 (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, these tags are not for simply identifying when sometime in the history of the article there were edits made by people who may have had a conflict of interest.

The COI tag is for identifying articles that are biased.

The AUTO tag is for identifying articles where COI applies and significant unreviewed edits have been made by the subject of the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Ronz - please refer to the contents of the COI and AUTO notices themselves:

COI "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. "

The neutral point of view has to be proven before the tag is removed.

AUTO "This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject."

It needs to be shown that a majority of the edits from the subject nor from someone connected to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.12.45.75 (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You made a proposal. I've rejected it because it ignores the purpose of the tags, to identify problems related to neutrality. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The POV tag is used to identify content that needs to be checked for bias. AUTO is used to tag autobiographical content. And COI is used to tag content where there is a possible conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is not the same thing as bias. You do understand what a conflict of interest is, don't you? 118.12.45.75 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The proposal is separate from application of the tags AUTO and COI, which have clearly described purposes. I have added AUTO and COI tags where I judge them to be appropriate, independent of the proposal I made before realizing that the Wikipedia already has a mechanism for flagging this kind of content 118.12.45.75 (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

Lack of consensus for 3O process - suggest Request for comment instead

coastside (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below. Viewpoint by (name here) I have two related claims. One is that the AUTO tag is used to flag content where there appears to be a strong autobiographical contribution. In the actual articles I have flagged as AUTO, the subject of the article has created the content themselves or someone closely related to them has created that content. I am claiming that this is appropriate use of the tag. I am further claiming that the COI tag is used to flag content where there appears to be a conflict of interest for the editor who created the article and/or is the major contributing editor of the article. This is not exactly the same as the AUTO tag, though clearly there is an overlap. Note that the Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographical content, and I consider these tags useful in explicitly identifying such content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.12.45.75 (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Viewpoint by (name here) @Ronz: I think you're the other editor here, right? FYI Coastside I was also asked for WP:3O on this issue, but at the talk page of the biographical article in question. FrankP (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Given the number of articles and editors involved, I don't see how 3O could possibly apply. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Third opinion by coastside 3O Response: 118..75 - What you said above seems generally consistent with the guidance on the use of the {{Autobiography}} and {{COI}} templates. Is there a disagreement about that? The 3O process is meant to resolve a disagreement between two editors. Who is the second editor and what is the disagreement? Coastside (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Ok, I will close if there is no consensus on need for 3O process. I would suggest editors continue to use appropriate talk pages, including Project talk pages, and perhaps consider using the Request for comment process. Coastside (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct Use of AUTO and COI tags

This section is being opened to discuss the correct usage of AUTO and COI tags. This is clearly an important general issue related to the handling of content that may be autobiographical or have a conflict of interest. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

One main question at issue seems to be defining the threshold needed to justify adding Template:COI or Template:AUTO. One view is to set a low bar, that is, to assume that simply because the article has or appears to have contributions by someone connected to the subject, this in itself justifies tagging it. The opposing view is to set a high bar, meaning that there needs to be specific and demonstrable evidence of bias caused by a conflicting interest before tagging the article.

It seems clear from the Template documentation that an extreme low-bar interpretation is not intended. The AUTO page says the template should be used only when autobiographical content in a Wikipedia article has been reasonably well established, not when it is merely suspected, and goes on to talk about the body of evidence which would be needed. While the COI page says "Use this tag to alert readers that the article may be biased by a conflict of interest", which could be interpreted as setting a low bar since the word may is relatively weak, however it still recommends starting a talk page discussion "to explain what is non-neutral about the article". In other words, there should be something specific in the article that can be pointed out as biased. Not simply the fact that some contributor may have a connection to the subject of the article. FrankP (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree with your interpretation of the policy that the threshold should be higher for adding a AB/AUTO/AUTOBIO than for a COI. This is natural, since COI captures a wider range of possibilities and an autobiography is a more specific conflict of interest. In my view giving explanation at the talk page should be required when adding either tag. Note that the tags indicate substantial evidence but not necessarily absolute certainty. Setting the threshold too high reduces the utility of the tag. Furthermore tagging is not final. A tag can be removed after suitable discussion or editing has taken place. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Generally, it's best to focus on content. If there are clear COI problems that have not been addressed, take them to WP:COIN.

Article talk pages should identify any editors with a clear or very likely COI, through a disclosure. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@118.12.45.75 I wasn't expressing an opinion on the comparative thresholds of COI vs AUTO, that is your opinion I believe. But what you have not commented on is that it is necessary to provide some evidence of content which is biased or unverified, and from what I have seen you have not done this at least at Kiwao Nomura. FrankP (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There is indeed unverified content on that page, basically the entire biography section has no sources cited, but I think that is better discussed on the talk page for Kiwao Nomura. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree, any discussion of the specifics is best on that talk page. I just wanted to introduce it as an example. If we are discussing how / when to implement COI tags it is a relevant point to suggest that content-specific detail needs to be provided in the Talk page by the person adding the Template. And content-specific means more than stating "this page is maintained by its subject", it means pointing to factual claims or opinions which are not backed up by verifiable sources. FrankP (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

More generally, both of you seem to agree that there is not a fundamental problem with autobiographical content, if it is not proven to be biased. Or at least that such content does not need to be tagged. That seems to be a mismatch with the general policy stated in several places which strongly discourages such content, However, then if this is your position, then at least that is clear to me now. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

So this has not been a complete waste of time. I have some idea of why the amount of autobiographical and COI content in the Wikipedia continues to grow. General policy seems to be clearly against the creation of this kind of content but there is not an efficient method for dealing with it. Oh well. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

My position has been (and continues to be) that it is strongly discouraged. Please refrain from stating my position, I am capable of doing so myself. However, the purpose of tagging articles, I believe, is when they become biased and/or unverified. My advice to anyone editing their own bio would be to be very explicit about what they are doing and why, and if possible to do so by means of requests through more neutral intermediaries. FrankP (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:CAT/R disagrees that "details of your religious beliefs...may not be verifiable"

Currently, this guideline states, "deep biographical detail, such as details of your religious beliefs ... may not be verifiable". According to the WP:CAT/R guideline,

“ Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. [emphasis added] ”

This would seem to indicate that a BLP subject has an immediate and final say on the current state of their religious beliefs, does it not? I believe it does and they should, in accordance with the deeply personal nature of religious belief (or any such noteworthy metaphysical opinions.) If I say that J.R. "Bob" Dobbs is my personal lord and savior, nobody has any authority to say otherwise, and you absolutely have to take my word about the veracity because I alone am the only person who can be and ever will be privy to it, at least until substantial advances in fMRI-like brain scan technology.

Should we state that a BLP subject's religion is a particular sort of "unambiguous" fact which they may insert, correct or update themselves, at their own personal discretion, without the need for further sourcing? EllenCT (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

People can remove obviously mistaken facts about themselves, but they can’t introduce new facts, especially unverifiable ones. I don’t think a person’s contribution to their own article can be taken as the sort of self-identification WP:CAT/R requires, because we have no way of verifying whether the editor is who they say they are.--Trystan (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree in principle, but in most of these cases when a subject is trying to correct their BLP, there is little question it is actually them editing, in my experience. Perhaps editors with more work on BLPs under their belt have a different experience? I do agree that if this proposal were made part of the guideline then that would open it up to the sort of abuse you contemplate, which is probably not acceptable. EllenCT (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as religious belief goes, this is something that should require a source every. Single. Time. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 17:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Should we have a different threshold for this sort of thing, e.g., if Joe Celebrity tweets "I've converted to Zoroastrianism!" is that an acceptable source as an alternative to, say, an Entertainment Tonight profile? EllenCT (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Twitter could be ok per WP:BLPSELFPUB, but context matters. Would we generally wan't something like that in a BLP if Twitter is all there is? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Generally Twitter is a good way to solve this - issues come up with less famous, notable, individuals who don't have a public verification. I have had issues with whether a self-declared editor on-wiki is the same, so I wouldn't accept that as sufficient (asking for vandalism). I would however be game for letting a confirmed identity select their faith (IAR, exceptions as always etc), but it would probably need to be done via OTRS. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

(preface: I'm not a person who does a ton with BLPs) Here's a question to consider...why do we need their religion/other "deep biographical details" at all if they're not verifiable? If it's important to their biography (perhaps a strongly religious upbringing or some kind of controversy) then there should be a source reporting on it, and while that source will probably be relying on the subject's own statements it will at least be some kind of external coverage. In other words: Joe Celebrity tweeting "I've converted to (religion)" doesn't seem sufficient on its own to include in an article, but if a magazine article says "Joe Celebrity was inspired by his (religion)'s beliefs to found an orphanage for left-handed children born in the Eastern Hemisphere between July and August," then that might be worth including. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should not be the first to publish someone's religion. Even if the subject edits Wikiipedia or asks at OTRS, it really should be in some reliable source. If the subject does contact or otherwise try to correct it, then they should be asked to publish the information somewhere else first, eg official website, facebook page, twitter etc. If there is no reliable source then it would be best to make no statement. I don't know if we have subjects that keep changing their religion. There is one person on Wikipedia that is gender fluid, and then has to have their gender changed in an article on a frequent basis, and this situation should be avoided for religion. If there are several reliably sourced statements then they can be used to build an encyclopedic history. However statements by the subject should have precedence over other sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• I think, if we need clarification, we need to make clear that any statements of religious beliefs in Wikipedia articles need to be published in reliable sources, allowing for WP:SELFPUB and the use of official and verified social media accounts as being sufficient for such uses; secondarily we should allow for article subjects to request removal of incorrect (though technically properly sourced) religious belief information, but we should NOT allow for the modification or addition of such information without sources to verify it. Simply put, while WP:V requires that religious information MUST be properly sourced, it does not require that we include it, in light of guidance elsewhere that information should be a defining characteristic of the subject; a person's religious beliefs would not always be a defining characteristic of them. In summation, as simply as I can put it, in the limited scope of religious beliefs, we should agree to remove any mention of religious beliefs in such cases as described above, even if sourced; however we should not modify or add beliefs to an article if sources don't exist. --Jayron32 17:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Biography on brother in-law

I was wonder how to guidelines work and whether this would be a breach.

Hi all, I wanted to ask a question as this has been stirring up a lot of chatter in our region/area of Australia.

My brother in-law is a quite but a very very successful man. He has a very accomplishing younger life where he played in the top rankings of tennis, rugby league, cricket and boxing. He fights with diabetes, fought off kidney cancer, went to medical school, started up a successful tech company and marketing agency to become a millionaire at 21 and more. He has numerous local/regional news articles about him as well as international articles summarising his business or life story, would this be enough for him to have a Wikipedia page about him? (He does get searched often within the Queensland area in Australia)

Thank you I’m advance! 2001:8003:F20D:4200:9D2A:C25C:CA90:B8F2 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Being a family member is too much of a conflict of interest to deal with an article about him. My best advice would be just to wait until a regular Wikipedian thinks that he deserves a page. Graham87 06:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)