This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.
Do not copy and pastedefamatory material here; instead, link to adiff showing the problem.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may imposecontentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.
Notes for volunteers
How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?
You can use{{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
Manually search BLPs for violations by using advanced search parameters.This link will search for X in the category of BLPs. Change X in the URL to the keyword you are looking for; alternatively, typeX incategory: Living_people (the underscore is necessary) in the search bar.
Should the perpetrator of theSlender Man stabbing Morgan Geyser be described as a trans man and should the article refer to them using he/him pronouns?
Would it be possible to specify when they started using He/Him pronouns? Considering when they were arrested and the fact that they still used She/Her pronouns at the time it's probably best to have a line or a section about this change rather than switching all of their pronouns to He/Him. I find this can become confusing without noting on the page the change in identification.Agnieszka653 (talk)17:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No,MOS:GENDERID is pretty clear on that; unless there is a specific statement from the subject, the pronouns remain consistent throughout; tran status is viewed as a revelation of something that was always true, rather than a change. --Nat Gertler (talk)17:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted back to the earlier version which used female pronouns, since there are BLPPRIVACY concerns.
Asnoted by NBC,Wisconsin's Department of Health Services noted that Geyser is considered a patient and therefore protected by patient privacy laws, limiting its ability to comment on her case. The Department of Corrections is similarly limited, it added.
Until there is something provided by Geyser that refers to how they want topublicly be identified as, then it is safe to assume that something mentioned to a doctor (Hessler, at the 4:30 markhere) in 2024 should be considered a privacy matter and the advice under BLPPRIVACY (The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified.) be respected.
Pinging@MjolnirPants: -WP:BLPRESTORE applies with material removed on BLP grounds. That isn't 'me complaining', that's policy. There are privacy concerns with the material, and it should be addressed. But whether through a RfC or discussion, disputed BLP material stays out pending a consensus.
Are you not reading my comments, are you incapable of understanding them, or do you simply not give a shit? Iexplicitly asked you not to ping me again, and laid out exactly what my contribution would be going forward. Also,WP:BLPRESTORE explicitly says that you should have gotten a consensus before restoringMOS:GENDERID violating material, and the participation in this thread is against you. If you can't engage with good faith, we can take this to ANI where you can attempt to justify your behavior.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comments just fine; I pinged you since yourestored the material that I had removed due to blp privacy concerns. I was unaware that you had asked not to be pinged after you had completed the edit mentioned above, so that's my fault, but the underlying blprestore concern still stands.
The material was added in by Roxy a little over a week ago, that doesn't mean there is an explicit consensus for it to stay in the article. And I'm sorry, but the Manual of Styleguideline doesn't override BLPpolicy, especially when it comes to patient privacy concerns and the possibility that we are essentially outing someone who told something to a doctor.
There isn't anything that is lost by waiting for a more definitive statement by Geyser (or her attorney, even) based on how they self identify that respects their privacy and is a more accurate statement of how they presently identify.
If you feel I haven't been engaging in good faith, then by all means bring it to ANI. You asked not to be contacted, so I'm kind of at a loss on how I can communicate with someone that doesn't want to deal with me.
Seriously, this is ridiculous. The way you're behaving, you're liable to get sanctioned if the consensus doesn't go your way, because you're actively edit warring to restore BLP-violating content. Even if the consensus does go your way, you still might catch a page block over this. I don't know why you're so vested in this that you need to makeabsolutely ridiculous arguments, go out of your way to be abrasive and are willing to violate our policiesby your own admission to get it done, but holy crap, touch some grass.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being abrasive, after being told to touch grass? Seriously man, dial back the rudeness. I'm not vested in anything, I'm just going by policies, and trying to respect someone's privacy. Nothing more, nothing less. And I never once said I would ask going to violate any policy to 'get it done'. Rather than launching into personal attacks, why not acknowledge what is lost by waiting for a statement from Geyser so we can have correct information in the article. Or don't, since I also would rather not have any interactions with you based on how you have responded to me both here and on the actual talk page.
This link (paywalled original,non-paywalled), based off ofthis court testimony of a different psychologist saying what another doctor had stated (that he had diagnosed Geyser with gender dysphoria), and Geyser had previously identified as non-binary without pronouns in 2023. The therapist in the CourtTV testimony states Geyser told their care staff they identified as male at the time.
It's unknown how they self identify, as well as if they essentially were ready to "come out" as transgender themselves.
Not sufficiently, alas. The paper is saying only that the doctor said that. The doctor’s testimony, even if reliably reported, is aWP:BLPSPS, not usable for statements about another living person. —Nat Gertler (talk)04:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable source did not publish that the individual is trans. They published that the doctor said the person is trans. It's a reliable source for the fact that the doctor said that; it's not a reliable source for the substance of the doctor's comment. (If may be easier to analyze the concept if you think of the example of the news reporting that Trump said something.) --Nat Gertler (talk)05:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all missed the "block party" this week and last. I filed an ANI complaint[1], then a few days later I and third editor got 24 hours in the penalty box for edit-warring, the page gotWP:GOLDLOCKed, and a good time was had by all. The admin reverted the article to an "antebellum" state[2] but as this was the last preferred version of the now-indeffed user, some BLP issues remain. The page is unlocked now, and I'm taking a big step back, hoping some uninvolved editors could please take a look at theWP:BLPCRIME problems and my proposed solutions on the article talk page[3]. Thanks and sorry about the mess.BBQboffingrill me20:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created by someone claiming to be Hadrien Laroche, but that user's last edit of the page was in 2012here and the page has been improved since then by many other editors. If you'd like to discuss additional improvements to the article, the place to do that would be the article's talk page:Talk:Hadrien Laroche.BBQboffingrill me06:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the subject of the above entry. It has a lot of factual errors and is very, very incomplete. I tried to edit it the other day and I changed the image, too, but it reverted back to the original incorrect text after a day or two. I do understand that subjects aren't supposed to contribute to their own entries, but this doesn't even have my correct date of birth! I never google myself, so I was unaware of just how bad this is. Can I please get permission to edit this entry or perhaps work with a volunteer editor to make the changes in the correct manner? Thank you!— Precedingunsigned comment added byMetzger.richard (talk •contribs)22:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The poor placement of refs within the article makes it hard to tell what's supported and what's not. It seems some text is not actually supported by any refs (like theWP:DOB that I removed), while others might have partial support in one of several refs at the end of the same or next paragraph. SimultaneousWP:V for several refs and many claims might be best done on a desktop, which means tomorrow for me.JFHJr (㊟)23:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've scrubbed the article after reviewing thevalid andverifiable sources; I revised my own edit regarding the subject's POB, but left DOB unstated because the best we have right now is a stated (for interview) age in an old piece. I alsoproposed deletion because it's not clear this subject is notable. Only 2 of 3 refs currently provideWP:SIGCOV. Cheers.JFHJr (㊟)03:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metzger.richard, if you know of any reliable sources unrelated to you that have lent you significant biographical coverage, here or the talkpage would be a great place to let us know. Please,no résumé stuff. Once a source is qualified, editors other than you can decide whether and how to include anythingit really says.JFHJr (㊟)03:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the text that I wrote which was redacted, I mentioned that I was the doorman at a nightclub in NYC where a prefame Vin Diesel worked as the bouncer. Here is a citation that he worked there.
The name of the company was The Disinformation Company Ltd. My actual DOB is October 25, 1965. There are a LOT of other (somewhat minor, but still) mistakes on the page.~2025-39050-42 (talk)03:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cincinnati was a good find. I added it to the article without underpinning any content (Further reading), but I did provide all the markup it needs to be referenced, if it can be. Substacks are subpar, and blogs, promoters, and your own associated domain are unqualified because they aren't secondary resources. Even if they're used (rightly or wrongly)elsewhere on WP. Please also seeWP:PRIMARY.JFHJr (㊟)04:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been operating with youin good faith that you are the subject of the article. The least you could do, please, is make sure you're logged in when you edit or comment on Wikipedia. If you want your DOB as you state here, it would help if you were logged in and confirmed it at the article talkpage somewhere. Otherwise, you might seeWP:VRT for how to confirm your identity. I know I already recommended a lot of reading but that's one more. Cheers.JFHJr (㊟)04:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'veWP:PRODed the article because I can't find anyWP:SIGCOV. The book contains scandalous and defamatory accusations, but it is probably not notable apart from its victim. There are no reviews or criticisms of the book apparently available.JFHJr (㊟)03:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have personally removed the prod, but I agree with the removal. It's possible the book can be covered in other articles, but it is fairly significant in Malaysian history, given it's associated with the 1998 battle between Mahathir and Anwar leading to Anwar's downfall at the time. Reviews aside, actions relating to the book like where it was distributed, it being banned etc are IMO probably best covered in an article on the book, see e.g.[4] and[5]. The book itself still reverberates today see e.g.[6] and[7] where more recent stuff are compared to it (yes I know not all of these are RS but I didn't try that hard to find RS especially non English ones).Nil Einne (talk)11:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Killing of Lisa from Abcoude (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)I'd like to have some input from an uninvolved party on that one. I removed / changed several things from the article, giving clear reasons for the removal in my edit summaries[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15].And I started a Talk page thread regarding the cases listed in theSee also section of the article[16], which I've also edited while giving reasons for the edits[17][18]. I pinged the editor who had added those other cases to theSee also section[19]. The editor engaged in the discussion, which was also fine at first[20][21][22] (<-borderline between fine and problematic as there's still no conviction)[23], but in my opinion became problematic moving forward as they reverted all my edits without differentiating between what was addressed in the discussion and what was not[24] and started to make problematic statements on the talk page[25], I tried to explain the problem referencing their revert[26][27], but seemingly failed[28][29] (<-another problematic statement).Nakonana (talk)16:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article grossly violated WP:BLP policy in stating as a fact that the suspect carried out the attack. I have corrected this, and made other changes to the lede to better follow the sources. If you see anyone violating WP:BLP policy again in such a blatant manner, REVERT IMMEDIATELY, and take them to WP:ANI.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I considered taking it to ANI but thought they might say it's a content dispute. Thanks for confirming that the article content was problematic, I don't often edit in this area.Nakonana (talk)17:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have started an ANI thread regarding a comment made on the article talk page.[30] As for the article itself, there are clearly still issues, not least with the questions regarding the nationality, age etc of the suspect, as you noted on the talk page.
A recent edit (which I reverted) alleged that members of this band had connections to far right groups suchBritish Movement andCombat 18. Absent a source, this is a serious BLP violation and probably needs to be rev-deleted. Yes, the lyrics to "One Law for Them" were a bit problematic with their Enoch Powell references, but they were never an explicitly racist band.MaxBrowne2 (talk)04:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxBrowne2 Well, from a search this seems at least true for their first drummer (Hitchcock) who most of that edit was about, who had ties toHarold Covington and C18 according to several academic books[31][32] Perhaps not worth including but if it is verifiable and well sourceable I don't think it's really worth revdelling. Haven't checked for the rest.PARAKANYAA (talk)08:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the BLP concerns there is an exceptionbut undoing such a massive amount of text becausesome of it is BLP is likely to be questioned due to the broadness. It is however clearly an edit dispute on the content, so should be discussed in Talk so I've reverted saying as much. If it continues it'll just go to the Edit-Warring board.Rambling Rambler (talk)22:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You absolutely can blocked for violating 3RR reverting defamatory content on BLPs,as I was, just last week for doing so. Leave it to someone other volunteer to come and hopefully "immediately remove" what you think is defamatory content.WP:NOT3RR is no guarantee of protection.BBQboffingrill me02:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting removal of unsourced and incorrect birthdate fromAimée Kelly. I am the subject of the article. The date is unsourced and incorrect, and no reliable published source provides the correct birthdate. Per WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIVACY, it should be removed. Previous requests on the Talk page have not been acted upon.~2025-36620-50 (talk)00:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recently,The Guardian published controversial and disputed accusations thatNigel Farage had expressed racist and antisemitic views as a school pupil nearly 50 years ago. The accusations have been denied by Farage, withReform UK stating that the allegations are a smear campaign byThe Guardian. I'm concerned by a potentially defamatory edit summary, here.[37]
I'm also concerned that the same editor posted on the talk page of the Farage article more potentially defamatory content. The content on the talk page should have statedallegedly, not treat a controversial accusation as fact. Please see here[38]
I have concerns about the due weight of coverage in the article and the adding of more disputed accusations to the biography. In my view the article should concisely state that allegations were reported inThe Guardian and Farage denied them. I stated in a recent edit summary that biographies should be written conservatively and I don't think there's a clear consensus yet on the talk page to keep adding more disputed accusations, stating in the edit summary: "Please seeWP:BLPRESTORE".[39]
Is the fact that the driver was a "registered sex offender with a history of sex crimes" strictly speaking relevant to the event (and the section of the article as a whole)?Trade (talk)03:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that at the very least, if we're showing his sentence, noting that he has prior convictions gives some context for that sentence, as priors can influence the length of the sentence. --Nat Gertler (talk)06:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @NatGertler but I do not think it's directly related to the road rage event and should not be grouped in with that--I think adding it just as background would be ok to give context to the fact that he had prior convictions/brushes with the law is probably fine.Agnieszka653 (talk)16:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @JGleick per the other comment--if you have a secondary source "proving" you have a sister (on paper) it can be used to add your sibling to the the page. The only caveat is it needs to follow the stipulations of the Reliable Sources noticeboard see here: [[41]] which are more stringent for BLP pages (it's a way of sort of protecting living people from being slandered online or perpetuating rumors etc)Agnieszka653 (talk)19:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please refer to the page history of the draft. I’ve removed what I think is BLP offending content (as opposed just the usual puffery we see in AfC) but would be glad for a second opinion on if it needs any further action.Fermiboson (talk)23:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continuously? I saw only one instance that your revered. Consensus is not apparently in question. But if you think this needs preventive measures, tryWP:RPP withWP:DIFFs of the continuous or repeated efforts, and a suggestion for a protection level that would thwart them. Cheers.JFHJr (㊟)03:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as long as this is the forum, I'll state that Breton is not a nationality. France is the country of nationality, and Bretagne is not a region in the sense ofMOS:NATIONALITY. It is an ethnicity, an indigenous people, a minority and several other things perhaps. But the nationality, as stated on in an encyclopedia or a passport for example, will never be "Breton" or "Bretagne" or "Brittany" for a living subject. For example, someone may be from Menton, but their nationality is not Mentonasque or Occitan, and French Basques are French nationals.JFHJr (㊟)03:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently an edit war going on over the addition ofWP:NONENG sourcesDetik.com (which is little more thanchurnalism) andMedia Indonesia (which is merely recycled content fromWP:NYPOST andWP:THESUN), while removing more reliable English-language sources concerning the subject's recent arrest for flouting Indonesia's "morality" laws. Additional eyeballs here would be appreciated. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk)17:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. You repeatedly deleted entire sections of content. If you had specific concerns like "one of the sources is a translation from 'The Sun'" you could have said so instead of just blanking the whole thing (since it is superfluous, I have now removed that citation), e.g., you removed a citation to the South China Morning Post without explanation.
Detik.com is described on Wikipedia "as an online news portal and publishes breaking news. The portal is consistently ranked among Indonesia's 10 most-visited websites and is among the top 250 in the world."
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have concerns about the Maria Caruso article, as several sections appear to rely on promotional or subjective language and may not fully align with BLP and neutrality requirements. Some claims are presented without independent sourcing, and portions of the article place significant emphasis on the subject’s own ventures and achievements in a way that may reflect a conflict of interest.
I didn't provide them, as already stated, I tried to automate moving them from an older version of the article, which as you saw was a complete mess. There are plenty of sources out there. AFD is the correct place.Beach drifter (talk)04:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Peter Levashov – Source contradicts text, BLP violation
The articlePeter Levashov contains a problematic passage with a source that directly contradicts the claim it supposedly supports.
Current text: "In December 2024 during an interview with Gazeta.ru, Levashov stated that he has never had any dealings with United States intelligence agencies."
Problem: The cited source's headline states "Famous Russian Hacker Petr Levashov Turns Out to Be an FBI Agent" — this is the **opposite** of what the text claims. The source presents a lawyer's opinion as fact, not Levashov's actual statement from an interview.
This is:
AWP:SYNTH violation — the source does not support the text
AWP:BLP concern — misrepresenting a living person's statements
Potentiallydefamatory — implying someone is an intelligence agent based on third-party speculation
Requested action: Remove or correct this passage, and verify with a source that actually contains Levashov's interview statements.
I agree that the text contradicts the source in the reference, which also isn't an interview. It does however state that court documents state the article subject (which, judging by your username, is you?) admitted to working with the FBI in the past. I have no idea on the reliability of Russian media so the question would be if Gazeta.ru is a reliable secondary source or not for the statement.
The claim that 'court documents state admission to working with FBI' is false — no such statement exists in any court documents. I challenge you to provide the actual court document with this claim, because it doesn't exist.
The Gazeta.ru article is based entirely on unverified claims from a single individual who had personal motivations to make such statements. Russian media, particularly in politically sensitive cases, often publishes unverified claims without fact-checking.
Per Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources: a source making a factual claim should be verifiable. The Gazeta.ru article makes claims that are directly contradicted by actual court records. If someone claims 'court documents say X' — the court documents themselves should be cited, not a tabloid interpretation.
Additionally, using a source that the article subject has explicitly disputed, when that source cannot be independently verified against actual court records, violates WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) which requires higher standards for potentially defamatory content.
That's incorrect, reliable secondary source analysis of court documents are required under BLP. We never cite the documents themselves perWP:BLPPRIMARY. However the secondary sources do need to be reliable and if there's good reason to doubt the court documents exist then the source should not be used. The subject disputing a source is of limited relevance. If it's a reliable source than they should be willing to issue a correction of the subject is able to demonstrate the source is clearly wrong eg because the court documents don't exist.Nil Einne (talk)09:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've actually made my point for me. You state: "if there's good reason to doubt the court documents exist then the source should not be used."
That's exactly the situation here. The Gazeta.ru article claims court documents contain a specific statement. I am telling you, as the subject of those court documents with direct access to them, that no such statement exists. This isn't me "disputing the interpretation" — this is me stating the cited court documents literally do not contain what the source claims they contain.
The burden of proof should be on those wanting to keep defamatory content, not on the subject to prove a negative. Can anyone produce the actual court document showing this claim? If not, you have "good reason to doubt" per your own standard.
Regarding WP:BLPPRIMARY — this policy exists to prevent cherry-picking from primary sources. It does not mean Wikipedia can cite a secondary source making false claims about primary documents when the primary documents are publicly available and contradict the secondary source.
I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I'm asking: where is the evidence that this court document exists?
I'd call that case into question I'd say. I haven't read the whole gazeta.ru article yet, but it looks like the relevant passages refer to a court case in the United States? To quote the gazeta.ru article:
Кошкина задержали в Калифорнии в сентябре 2019 года по обвинению в создании и поддержке сервиса Сrypt4u для маскировки вредоносного ПО. (translation: Koshkin was arrested in California in September 2019 on charges of creating and maintaining the Crypt4u service for disguising malware.)
В суде по делу Кошкина Левашов рассказал, что начал работать с ФБР еще в 2018 году, спустя несколько месяцев после экстрадиции в США. Выдержки из материалов суда по делу Кошкина в 2021 году опубликовали различные СМИ. (translation: In the Koshkin trial, Levashov testified that he began working with the FBI back in 2018, several months after his extradition to the United States. Excerpts from the Koshkin trial documents were published by various media outlets in 2021.)
Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate — gazeta.ru is referencing a AI-translation of an article from a different media outlet. They are not referencing the article itself. If they are actually relying on the AI-translation to make the court document claims then we need to be wary of hallucinations and mistranslations.
The original article (which got AI-translated) was published byRadio Free Europe/Radio Liberty which is a problematic source, particularly due to its connections to United States intelligence agencies, seeWP:RFE/RL.
If that is really what gazeta.ru is relying on, then I'd agree that there's a problem with the claims made.
Aside from that, the gazeta.ru article reports on the opinion of a lawyer. But an opinion is not a fact, and one would need to check whether a (random?) lawyer's opinion is wp:due for inclusion in the article.
And as for checking the court documents, aren't US court documents being made public? Shouldn't it be possible to check them regarding the claims?Nakonana (talk)19:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the subject of the article and am reporting a potential violation of the biographies of living persons policy.
IssueThe article’s lead currently states that the subject “co-operated the Soul Centro iboga retreat in Costa Rica, where a participant died during a 2024 ceremony, prompting an official investigation by local authorities.” This framing gives undue prominence to a single tragic incident and implies unresolved culpability, despite the investigation concluding without charges.
Additionally, the article contains a standalone “Death of Lauren Levis” section that presents the event in a level of detail and prominence disproportionate to the subject’s overall notability as an artist, and omits material outcome context regarding the conclusion of the investigation.
Policy concerns
WP:BLP – Potentially harmful content about a living person must be presented with extreme care, accuracy, and full context.
WP:LEAD /WP:UNDUE – Giving a fatality prominent placement in the lead of an artist’s biography places disproportionate weight on a single event unrelated to the subject’s primary notability.
WP:SYNTH – The current wording and structure risk implying responsibility without explicit sourcing stating such responsibility.
WP:RECENTISM – A recent event is being emphasized over decades of established artistic career.
Requested remedyI respectfully request administrator review to determine whether:
The lead sentence should be removed or rewritten to comply with WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE, or relocated to a lower section.
The “Death of Lauren Levis” section should be reduced in prominence, rewritten to include full outcome context (including closure of the investigation and absence of charges), or summarized in a more neutral and proportionate manner.
This report is submitted solely for policy compliance and not to dispute that a death occurred.
I've reviewed your post even though your use of AI really makes me want to ignore or collapse that wall of text from view. I've removed a lot of what you're complaining about, with edit summaries explaining why. But please, don't post here again with AI. It doesn't even know this isn't an admin noticeboard. See alsoWP:VRT andWP:VRTN about how you can confirm your identity and communicate with Wikipedia volunteers.JFHJr (㊟)02:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could use more eyes on this article. An editor has persistently and disruptively removed a maintenance template without entirely resolving the issues. The sources and tone are still poor.StephenMacky1 (talk)18:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is disagreement concerningdiff which added "Newton has been in a steady relationship with dancer Antonia Roumelioti since 2023. In the early stages of their partnership, he reportedly kept the relationship private, influenced by his experiences with previous partners and the heightened public scrutiny surrounding his on-screen chemistry and perceived association with co-starNicola Coughlan. Newton and Roumelioti began making more public appearances together since early 2025." with referenceelle.com. Is that wording suitable/due/verified?Johnuniq (talk)04:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that diff which shows that the gossip about an actor's dating life was added five days ago by a new editor with a total of five edits. That inexperience explains why such inappropriate wording was used.Johnuniq (talk)06:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not know who originally added the information, as I was only reviewing for neutrality post semi protection status. The title of the article alone, that includes the word rumored, indicates that it is unverified.Reguse32 (talk)06:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: it should be noted there weremultiple pieces of information removed during this edit war includingthis which is clearly sourced by aWP:RS as perWP:PEOPLEMAG... This is part of what led to so much confusion in my part.
The questionable citations that remain are The Elle magazine citation, which includes "rumored" verbiage in the Personal life section and the People magazine citation which is used in the Partners section. In the case of People, "There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons, but the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source." What is used is a contentious claim that does provide any direct quotations nor link any other stronger source material.Reguse32 (talk)06:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'd also like to comment on this topic. I've been keeping an eye on the wikipedia page about Luke Newton for a long time and edit important sections time by time. In the statement we can currently find in the "Personal Life" section, some things are unsubstantiated.No tabloid article mentions "2023". That's pure speculation, bc his past relationship ended in early 2023. And theElle-Article is based on an Instagram-Post Newton made in early 2025 (The Instagram Official Thing). The actor has never publicly confirmed the relationship. (even in the post he made is no word of "my girlfriend"). His team has never commented on it either. There were pap pictures of him and Antonia, and the press changed "alleged girlfriend" to "girlfriend". He has neither publicly confirmed nor denied it. There are no interviews in which he explicitly refers to her as "his girlfriend".So yeah it seems like they are together/dating according to pap pics and pics from events --> thats a fact I addmit
BUT
I don't think this "In the early stages of their partnership, he reportedly kept the relationship private, influenced by his experiences with previous partners and the heightened public scrutiny surrounding his on-screen chemistry and perceived association with co-starNicola Coughlan." is truly neutral. A wikipedia article should be written neutrally. Therefore, I would suggest deleting this part, as well as the date2023. Neither of these claims can be substantiated by thePeople-article.
And if the information about his current relationship really needs to be in the article, then I would keep it very simple. Just adding a sentence like "He is currently dating dancer Antonia Roumeliotti"Miss.Sophia.F (talk)17:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Removal or Correction – Misleading BLP Claim
In the biography of Ja’Mal Green.This sentence is misleading and violates Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy.
The statement “Vallas’s campaign paid Green” is factually incomplete and implies personal financial benefit or a quid-pro-quo endorsement, which is not supported by the cited source or campaign finance law.
The referenced payments were campaign expenditures to an entity for services, not evidence that Jamal Green personally received funds or endorsed in exchange for payment. The source does not establish wrongdoing, coordination, or a causal link between payment and endorsement.
Under BLP and defamation policy, implied allegations based on timing and wording must be removed or rewritten with neutral, precise language. I am requesting review and correction by an uninvolved editor.
The sentence implies corruptionThe source does not prove personal benefitThe wording “paid Green” is inaccurate
This language exposes Wikipedia to defamation risk by implying quid-pro-quo without evidence. Per BLP, disputed material must be removed until supported by high-quality, neutral sources that explicitly establish the claim.~2025-40630-30 (talk)13:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the unsourced information and BLPPRIMARY violation.
WP:BLPSPS stipulates toNever use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves. Key words are 'written or published', not spoken. Should interviews be considered exempt from this?Traumnovelle (talk)20:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If person X self-publishes a video or oral interview with person Y, I think it should be acceptable to use person Y's spoken statement about themself, as long as it satisfies theWP:BLPSELFPUB conditions and we have no reason to think that it's been edited in a misleading way. I think that's consistent with the motivation for BLPSPS and BLPSELFPUB.FactOrOpinion (talk)20:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. ABOUTSELF would only cover for statements of person X. We really do have no idea how X has edited the interview of Y. There needs to be an independent and reputable editorial process for X.Morbidthoughts (talk)00:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If person Y made a statement about an upcoming project or something about their own life, we could cite it under ABOUTSELF still (and usually do, since podcasts are cited often as well as interviews), as long as we wereaccurate with the quote. The main factor on us including a statement that someone stated would be if it was DUE for inclusion.
So looks like Wikipedia have been framing an innocent man as the suspect and person of interest along with his full name for several hours
Does BLPCRIME even matter anymore? There's no point in me bringing it up on the talk page if everyone can just freely ignore it anywaysTrade (talk)09:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind there have been three cases of people adding false names as the perpetrator within a relatively short amount of time in between and so far no one have even bothered to revdel it despite me asking--Trade (talk)09:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but what's the point of removing BLPCRIME violations? You remove it once and a different user adds it back couple of hours later when you are away from the computerTrade (talk)16:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have an unusual case here where an RSP-generally-reliable source (WP:PEOPLEMAG) has made some extremely serious BLP claims that, despite about 12 hours since of heavy media coverage, no one else seems able to confirm, and for the most part other sources aren't even willing to report on indirectly. I would welcome some more eyes on this case as the story develops; I've commented on this atTalk:Rob Reiner § The People article. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)14:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
