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.
In October,User:FDW777 edited the article to remove the adjective "allegedly"[1] when describing the contention that Siddiqui stole a rifle and shot at U.S. personnel in Ghazni, Afghanistan. Siddiqui and some Afghan witnesses contest U.S. assertions. Siddiqui was extradited to the U.S. and convicted of attempted murder in a court in Manhattan. Looking back over the article's history, the claim that Siddiqui shot at U.S. personnel has variously been attributed or not attributed, in the lead, over a period of many years.
I restored attribution of the claim here[2] a few days ago, noting that the article body attributes the claim that Siddiqui shot at U.S. personnel. FDW777 reverted[3], explaining,"tried and convicted." On thetalk page entry about our dispute, FDW777 further argues that because some article body sentences don't use attribution, while embedded in a series of paragraphs and many sentences that do, we are not violatingMOS:LEAD if we drop attribution in the lead as well.
I strenuously maintain that we need to keep attribution of this contested claim in the lead. I would appreciate if people here would comment on the issue. -Darouet (talk)14:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Siddiqui and her legal team had their day in court, they lost. It isn't for Wikipedia editors to attempt to relitigate the case on her behalf. As I noted on myremoval of the first "alleged", it ceased to be alleged once she went to court and was tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned. Where she remains to this day, having declined to appeal. There is no BLP issue in stating as fact that a convicted criminal did what they were convicted of, and their denials should not be given any weight in the lead whatsoever.FDW777 (talk)14:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Further, Darouet'sedit yesterday stated "The lead is a summary of the article, which does not state in Wikivoice that Siddiqui shot at U.S. personnel: something she and her lawyers always denied. If you want to edit the lead, you need to edit the article body"]. As I have pointed outhere andhere the article body already does just that, statingThe captain dove for cover to his left as she yelled "Allah Akbar" and fired at least two shots at them, missing them.FDW777 (talk)15:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody other than Siddiqui/her lawyers actually dispute that she fired the shots? If there's a serious mainstream view that she was wrongfully convicted you might have a point here, but in general if someone has been convicted of a crime we absolutely both can and should say in Wikivoice that they did it. In a case such asLucy Letby we carefully do not say in the lead in Wikivoice that she actually committed the murders that she was convicted of, but that's a pretty extraordinary situation and so far as I can tell Siddiqui's case is not remotely comparable – certainly nothing in the body of Siddiqui's article suggests there's any serious outside belief that she's innocent. Even our discussion of the reaction to her case in Pakistan focuses on the belief among Pakistanis that she has been mistreated or tortured in jail, not that she is fundamentally innocent.Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk)11:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Caeciliusinhorto-public: yes, many sources state that her guilt is questionable. From an academic journal and published in 2018:
"According to the official US story Siddiqui was arrested for suspicious behavior outside the governor’s compound in Ghazni, and when searched by the local police she was found to be in possession of materials suggesting links to terrorist networks. US Army and FBI officials arrived promptly at the Ghazni police station, and Siddiqui, who was unrestrained behind a curtain,is said to have grabbed an unsecured rifle and attempted to shoot at the US officials. Some witnesses were to testify later that she screamed, “Allahhuakbar” (God is great) or “death to all Americans” as she shot the gun, although these accounts vary. The FBI agents returned fire and shot her multiple times in the abdomen. Siddiqui was severely injured with multiple gunshots and was taken to a hospital facility at the US army airbase for treatment. In August 2008 Siddiqui was extradited to the United States.This particular rendition of the story was later to become the basis for the prosecutors’ account during the criminal trial proceedings in 2010." (Shaikk, K, Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, Vol. 39, No. 3 (2018), pp. 29-54)
"A ninety-pound woman was convicted of unlocking and firing several rounds from the M-4 military assault rifle on American serviceman that she had apparently grabbed from the floor, that was apparently left fully loaded and unattended.No forensic evidence such as the discharged bullet casings or fingerprints on the M-4 rifle was found in the detention room to independentlycorroborate the claims made by the U.S. government prosecutors." (Sitaraman, Srini. "Global War on Terrorism and Prosecution of Terror Suspects: Select Cases and Implications for International Law, Politics, and Security." Amsterdam Law Forum, vol. 4, no. 1, Winter 2012, pp. 101-130.)
A recent NBC News summary[4] explains that while her case is acause celebre among terrorist groups, mainstream Muslim organizations in the United States also maintain that she is innocent:
"Her release has long been sought by militant Islamists, and even mainstream U.S. Muslim groups have said she is innocent and should be freed... When she was brought to a "a poorly lit room partitioned by a yellow curtain" and "crowded with Afghan officials" in 2008 to be questioned by two FBI agents and at least four members of an undisclosed U.S. special forces unit, she grabbed the M-4 military rifle of a chief warrant officer and opened fire,federal prosecutors said. TheFBI said she was behind that curtain. Her gunfire missed,prosecutors said, and the chief warrant officer shot her in the stomach with his sidearm. As the U.S. officials struggled to detain her, Siddiquiallegedly yelled, "I am going to kill all you Americans. You are going to die by my blood,"the prosecutors said."
Note that the article is very careful to attribute the allegations. A 2014Al Jazeera interview with Siddiqui's family[5] prefaces the interview with this summary:
"Aafia’s case prompted international outrage, and divided legal opinion."
This particular source precedes the conviction, but it's fromHarpers and describes the case against Siddiqui in similarly incredulous terms[6]. Interestingly, our article body takes a similar approach to the case as the Harper's article: describing each version of events with attribution.
Of course, we need not follow their lead, but German, French, Italian, and Spanish wikis note that Siddiqui was convicted, but describe her shooting at U.S. personnel as allegations.
Obviously from the above sources the conviction remains controversial. And our own article details this. As I've tried to explain, converting the careful attribution of allegations provided in the article body with certainty in the lead violatesMOS:LEAD. -Darouet (talk)20:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A few people who want to relitigate the case based on claimed lack of forensic evidence are of no relevance. Once someone has been charged, convicted and sentenced "allegations" cease to be such.FDW777 (talk)20:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What policy are you referring to, and do you have any reliable commentary on journalists and professors attempting to relitigate this case? -Darouet (talk)21:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Conviction is relevant with regard to things like the choice of words we use to describe events we discuss in our articles. Such as using the word "killing" to describe a killing prior to the conclusion of a trial and, if and after the killer is convicted for murder, then we can say that they did commit murder if there was already no doubt that the convict did in fact kill the victim (amd not all homicides are murder). If the point of contention is over whether any act was even committed at, we shouldn't be using convictions to state in wikivoice that a persondid do the thing they were alleged to do. We should say they were alleged to do it, then state they were convicted. Courts are not infallible and we are not arbiters of truth.~2026-59608-1 (talk)02:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly my point: there's no doubt she was convicted. It's easy enough to say that with sources. But this effort to convert what sources describe as highly contentious into Wikivoice here, using a court conviction, disregards both policy and sources. -Darouet (talk)04:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AtLudwig Kaiser#Personal life, there seems to be a long-running dispute over the status of the subject's relationship with a woman. (see the page history and protection logs). The sources used were published in February and April 2025. Several temp account editors appear to claim the couple has since broken up based on evidence from social media postings, while established editors seem to be reverting these changes. I tried attributing to the source dates, but I'm not certain that fully resolves it based on subsequent edits. With this much contention, I'm wondering if simply removing the section is the best path forward for everyone concerned. Input welcome.Left guide (talk)07:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think your wording is good, but temp accounts will continue to change it without sourcing, or stating that Kaiser was seen with some other woman on social media, which obviously isn't good enough sourcing. I'm hoping we can find an actual reliable source that states they are separated, as it's likely true. —Czello(music)07:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. The links speak for themselves on the kind of crap Fightful is willing to cover. Wikiprojects do not have ultimate say on a source's reliability.Morbidthoughts (talk)20:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia article on Kim Seon-ho, a South Korean actor needs a neutral, unbiased editor. The current editor does not allow important information to be added yet keeps the unverified information favorable to the actor. The page the way it is now suggests that was edited by his fans rather by a neutral editor.
Verifiable information regarding the tax evasion controversy has been repeatedly removed. The reason given by the editor “it has been cleaned and cleared” while the real information is that the actor apologized and paid back the taxes.
All reputable Korean news sources reported it, including Chosun Ilbo and MBC.
The article, the way it is written, looks more like a biased and partial view rather than an article providing accurate and verifiable information.
Furthermore, the article contains disproven insinuations, such as "and that the pair had broken up the following year due to questionable circumstances involving the ex-girlfriend." This claim has never been verified or substantiated. Furthermore, it's defamatory. WP:BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.
I have a close COI regarding the subject and am not editing the article directly.
The article currently contains an extensive section titled “Relationship with ...” (current:Special:Permalink/1336716129). The section relies heavily on primary documents (DOJ PDFs) and includes privacy-invasive personal details (including verbatim quotations from private email correspondence and specific personal travel arrangements). It also includes insinuative language and synthesis/guilt-by-association framing in a standalone section.
Requests:
1) Uninvolved editor/admin review for BLP compliance (primary-source use, privacy, undue weight) and remove this section or pare back to a short policy-compliant summary.
2) If appropriate, please consider temporary page protection due to rapid back-and-forth editing.
3) For revisions that include privacy-breaching material, please consider RevDel/Oversight.
I have removed the section due toWP:BLPPRIMARY andWP:BLPCRIME concerns regarding anon-public figure and issued a BLP contentious topic alert for the user that added most of this information. The details were supported by Deparment of Justice files or the Princeton student paper. These allegations require much stronger sources for inclusion.Morbidthoughts (talk)00:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What's really weird is that was an edit war really necessary for a section containing 5 paragraph of details that ended up being summarised as "The emails themselves do not describe or allege illegal activity and primarily document communication, travel coordination, financial support, and professional interaction"?Morbidthoughts (talk)04:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot speak for other edits, but the edit I made to the page did not contain any privacy-invasive, primary material with undue weight. My edits cited Nature, which is regarded as one of the most reputable sources of information on planet Earth. My edits did not many any allegations or insinuations, but merely reiterated what Nature accurately reported, namely that "In 2026, Tarnita was named in theEpstein files. E-mails between Tarnita and Epstein[3] show they were in contact since at least December 2008, with Tarnita sending Epstein birthday messages in 2010 and 2011, years afterEpstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in June 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute." It is demonstrably true that Tarnita had email contact with Epstein in 2008, 2010, and 2011, as reported by Nature. I strongly encourage others here to read the Nature article cited above and cross-reference it with my edit. By all means delete speculative content and false information, butWP:NPF explicitly instructs to "include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Associations with Epstein are obviously relevant to the person's notability and Nature is an extremely high-quality secondary source.Latimeriachalumnae (talk)16:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to be unpleasant but plain speaking is good. An account that piles stuff into a BLP as their first edit to an article is unlikely to persuade others that they are motivated to write neutral, encyclopedic articles. That's particularly true when the edit summary is "added Tarnita's relationship with disgraced financier, child sex offender, serial rapist, and human trafficker Jeffrey Epstein as documented in Nature".Johnuniq (talk)23:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That wording was taken directly from the Wikipedia article forJeffrey Epstein which describes him as a "financier, philanthropist, child sex offender, serial rapist, and human trafficker"... It would be helpful if you could explain how my edit to the Tarnita page was inaccurate, irrelevant to notability, lacking a high-quality secondary source, or was inconsistent with Wikipedia guidance. Otherwise, I can't understand why the edit was undone.Latimeriachalumnae (talk)01:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Convincing everyone about everything is not possible and there does not need to be any debate about editslike this. Adding that someone exchanged emails with Epstein who was really evil is smear-by-association. Pushing that will lead to a block.Johnuniq (talk)22:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exchanging emails with a convicted child sex offender, serial rapist, and human trafficker (wording fromJeffrey Epstein) months and yearsafter that person was convicted by a Florida state court of procuring a child for prostitution (wording again fromJeffrey Epstein) absolutely goes to the notability of the person willingly exchanging said emails, as reported in a high quality secondary source (Nature). I do not have the final say over what goes onCorina Tarnita, but I am allowed the make this case to other admins viewing this page without the threat of being blocked. This is not a "smear", it is a factual account of events. Do as you wish.Latimeriachalumnae (talk)23:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How the material was presented was very inappropriate as has been described: too much detail, misuse of primary sources, OR about another case in Romania. However, a brief mention is DUE because her association with Epstein is discussed in detail by reliable sources. As well as Nature and the extensive report by Daily Princetonian, Inside Higher Ed and Chronicle of Higher Education are high quality sources.[10][11]. This isn't us engaging in guilt by association, as it's the sources that are raising that.Fences&Windows00:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another attempt to shame the subject of a BLP rather than provide encyclopedic information and context relevant to the subject.
I think Chopra is celebrity enough that we'll eventually have some BLP-quality references to work from. Currently the potential references have brief mentions or hurried summaries. Until better sources appear, I'm leaning toward inclusion of some basic facts most relevant to an understanding of Chopra, linkingEpstein Files for broader context. --Hipal (talk)01:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We need a clear policy about being in the Epstein Files
"...when I learned that the database of the files is searchable, I put 'Scalzi' in it to see what would pop up. I expected — and thus was not surprised by — several references to that name, because a banker with that last name handled some of Trump’s accounts at Deutsche Bank several years ago (no relation, as far as I know). But one of the references is indeed to me: Writer Rachel Sklar referenced me in an article she wrote in 2013, which is in the files for some reason, I assume because someone forwarded it to someone else in an email.
And, look: If one must have the appalling fortune to be in the Epstein Files, a one-sentence reference to an essay one wrote, located within another essay, neither about a topic that has anything to do with the exploitation of children, is almost certainly the best-case scenario. But it doesn’t mean I didn’t look at the reference when it popped up and say 'oh, fuck' to myself. What a wild, unsettling and unhappy context in which to find one’s self.
So why mention it at all? One, because when people inevitably come across that reference to me in the files and email me about it, I can point them to this as a way to say 'Yup, seen it, what a weird fucking thing that is' without having to type it out every single time. Two, I have enough detractors out there that one or more of them will loudly proclaim to their little pals that I am in the Epstein Files, and then slide past the actual context of being referred to tangentially, rather than being an actual participant in atrocities."
We need to make it clear when an editor can and can not add content about someone's name being in the Epstein Files.
A key policy isWP:BLPRS considering many of the files released by the DOJ were tip-line submissions that were not verified, corroborated, or investigated. One individual submitting information to a tip-line without proof is not a reliable source and cannot be used for a Wikipedia article. However, if an emailed tip is followed by extensive investigation, with abundant evidence, that may be a better example of a reliable source, especially if the details can be confirmed by sources other than the DOJ-released files.~2026-87633-7 (talk)07:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of people mentioned in the Epstein Files who never met Epstein IRL. Why? E.g., he watched Quora. He received e-mails with digests from top posters. All those posters got mentioned inside the Epstein Files. Even if they never talked to Epstein, nor e-mailed him, nor messaged him.tgeorgescu (talk)19:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "List of people named in the Epstein files" article isn't including people who were discussed by Epstein or those corresponding with him, or randoms from the internet. Don't strawman the article.Fences&Windows00:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, in theChris Hohn article lead section, I believe the third paragraph is WP:UNDUE. That information is currently not verified elsewhere in the article, and in the overall context of his biography I do not think it is significant enough to be included as it is. Because I work for theChildren's Investment Fund Foundation and have a conflict of interest, I have posted an edit request on theTalk page suggesting moving the paragraph into the article body rather than making any changes myself. Cheers,2012duke21 (talk)10:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the paragraph into the article body. I'm unclear where it best belongs, if it needs its own subsection heading, or if it deserves some mention in the lede. --Hipal (talk)18:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Is adding this type of content (diff) into this subject's article due or undue? Could use some input from experienced editors here. PingingReflecktor andSadko for participation, since they have also restored this content. If editors think it is due, then we can discuss the wording. There was also edit warring and disruption by an anon over this content and other questionable content.StephenMacky1 (talk)22:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I work for Pacific Repertory Theatre and I am the individual named in the paragraph.
I’m asking for administrator input on whether a paragraph in thePacific Repertory Theatre article complies with Wikipedia’s standards for biographies of living persons and due weight.
The paragraph describes board resignations, a motion concerning the executive director that was never voted on, and alleged threats attributed to unnamed board members. It relies on a single local weekly source and reports anonymous claims and internal personnel matters about a named living person.
I raised this issue on the article’s Talk page and allowed time for discussion, but no clear consensus emerged. The same wording was recently removed from theStephen Moorer biography following administrator review and an uninvolved editor’s action, based on BLP and due-weight concerns.
My concern is not just the sourcing, but also the way the material is presented. Even if the anonymous allegations are removed, retaining a bare count of board resignations without any broader context (such as routine turnover, health-related departures, or what happened afterward) risks creating a misleading impression. Board turnover is not uncommon in nonprofit organizations, and numbers alone do not necessarily indicate something historically significant.
Similarly, the board-dispute material relies on anonymous statements about internal disagreements and a motion that was never acted upon. Without multiple independent sources or evidence that the matter had lasting significance, this kind of reporting raises the concerns addressed in the policy on gossip about living persons.
Because BLP applies wherever living people are discussed, including organizational articles, I’m asking whether this material is appropriate in the context of the theatre’s history, or whether it should remain in the article.Smatprt (talk)23:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is ground about removing alleged threats. However, company articles talk about removal/appointment of and board matters related to executives all the time. So, I believe
Graywalls is the person who added the gossipy information about the supposed Board meeting. We do not routinely report on Board matters for this theatre company, and this assertion about 14 out of 20 board members resigning over a 13-month period conflates defections supposedly related to the disagreements over construction and other resignations for other undisclosed reasons. Also, the source states that their information comes from anonymous sources. Hardly the sort of thing that aWP:BLP should discuss. And the proof of the pudding is that the construction was finished, the renovated theatre has re-opened, and everyone in Carmel appears to be delighted with it. This speculation and gossip should be deleted. --Ssilvers (talk)00:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers:, What bullying? I removed the contentious partSpecial:Diff/1336418669 here in response to Smatprt's request. You're the one who undid it entirely on your own accord andHipal came along and removed it again. I think the way it is now is fine.
Commenting on your original interpretation of the matter:
"And the proof of the pudding is that the construction was finished, the renovated theatre has re-opened, and everyone in Carmel appears to be delighted with it"
It doesn't mean the project wasn't tumultuous. From the same article, which is aWP:RS,
But things continued to sour, and what was meant as a fix – hiring a construction manager – turned into a conflict. Coe describes a pattern of bullying and intimidation by Moorer, whom he’d been hired to help. “He has fought me since day one,” Coe says. Coe reports that he found the project mismanaged. Coe says that never before in his career had he created a separate folder for hate mail only – all sent by Moorer.In some emails viewed by the Weekly, Moorer takes a combative tone toward Coe. In one, dated Aug. 22, Moorer criticized Coe’s process and wrote to members of the board:“Lyle blew any chance at a waiver on the sound issue by raising it in print rather than in person. As we all (should) know, getting a project completed in Carmel is tricky and takes finessing. It’s small town politicking.”
Allegations againstDov Seidman made in a court case, repeated on Wikipedia, have now been ruled by a court to be defamatory, as described below. I’d like to request the finding of the court case, as summarized by the press, be included on the page. There’s a significant description of the accusations on Wikipedia so the legal finding and an admission by the plaintiff that these allegations were defamatory should be equally or more prominent.WP:DUE. I have aWP:COI as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by Seidman.Brucemyboy1212 (talk)23:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the third paragraph of the LRN 1992-present subsection, please add to become the last two sentences of the third paragraph:
In 2021, Seidman, along with the two other LRN board members, sued the lead plaintiff in the shareholders’ lawsuit for defamation. In 2024, a Delaware court ruled that all of the plaintiff’s allegations about Seidman and the board members in the shareholders’ lawsuit were false and defamatory; a trial was scheduled to determine damages. In 2026, the lead plaintiff agreed to pay $18 million to Seidman and the other board members in a non-confidential settlement. The lead plaintiff dismissed and “repudiated” the shareholders’ lawsuit, stating “When I joined the lawsuit, I had no evidence to support the allegations in the lawsuit, including the ones I added to it.” He said the lawsuit was without merit.[1]
The Bloomberg article may be paywalled, so here are the relevant excepts:
"Dov Seidman Wins $18 Million Defamation Payment Tied to LRN Case"Bloomberg Law (9 February 2026)Mike Leonard
“LRN Corp. founder Dov Seidman secured an $18 million defamation settlement over a rival businessman's false allegations about his stewardship of the corporate compliance company (...)
The expressly “non-confidential” agreement was initially reached last month, on the eve of a trial that would have set the damages owed by Marks, who was previously found liable for defamation, according to a joint filing in Delaware’s Chancery Court. The defamation claims were co-filed in Delaware’s Superior Court by LRN director Mats Lederhausen, previously a McDonald’s Corp. executive, and former board member Lee Feldman, a onetime partner at SoftBank Group Corp (...)But three months after a preliminary ruling let the case move forward in 2020, he moved to join and lead the lawsuit, alleging in a supplemental court filing that he had firsthand knowledge he’d been “cheated.” Around the same time, he leaked that document to the press. Seidman, Feldman, and Lederhausen sued for defamation the following year (...)
Monday’s court filings included a statement from Marks “repudiating” the shareholder case. “When I joined the lawsuit, I had no evidence to support the allegations in the lawsuit, including the ones I added to it,” the statement said.
I am requesting administrative intervention regarding a persistent WP:BLP violation and WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION issue on this article.
The Issue:
The article currently states: "She has argued that increased tax revenue through boosted housing supply is akin to a Ponzi scheme."
This creates a false narrative that the subject opposes taxation. The cited source (Daily Hive, Oct 14 2022) does not support this claim. The source explicitly quotes the subject critiquing the City's "financial business model" and its reliance on "generating more housing as its revenue source" (specifically Community Amenity Contributions/development fees) for capital projects. She likens that specific reliance—not "tax revenue"—to a Ponzi scheme.
Procedural Note:
I attempted to correct this factual error on the article, citing the source directly. I was reverted by User:Thenightaway with the summary "revert COI account." I then posted a formal edit request on the Talk Page 5 days ago (disclosing a COI context), but the request is stuck in a significant backlog.
Request:
Because this is a biography of a living person, defamatory errors regarding their professional competence and fiscal views must be corrected immediately per WP:BLP. I ask that a neutral administrator verify the Daily Hive source and align the article text with what the subject actually said.— Precedingunsigned comment added byStanigator (talk •contribs)17:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aroostock County in ME is in the 2nd District! All references to 1st District need to be changed to 2nd District.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2026-97199-8 (talk)
I am the subject of the article and acknowledge a conflict of interest. I am not editing the article directly and am requesting uninvolved review under WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT.
The article currently uses wording that states or implies I was “removed” from Universal Press / Andrews McMeel.
I request review of whether this wording precisely reflects what the cited reliable sources explicitly state. If the cited source states that a contract was not renewed or that a publication relationship changed, but does not explicitly state disciplinary removal or termination for cause, then wording such as “removed” may exceed what the source supports under WP:BLP and WP:V.
If the article implies complete severance of syndication relationships, I request review to ensure the article reflects the current, verifiable publication status.
2) Due weight and structure
The article devotes substantial coverage to 2016 plagiarism-related reporting. I am not requesting removal of reliably sourced material. However, I request review under WP:WEIGHT as to whether the article structure proportionally reflects the full scope of the subject’s career, given independently verifiable coverage including:
If career sections are underdeveloped or marked citation-needed while controversy coverage is fully detailed, I request review of whether structural balance complies with WP:WEIGHT.
3) Verification of specific claims
The article states that I “founded” The Puzzle Society. A prior talk-page discussion disputes this characterization. If there is no strong independent sourcing explicitly supporting that wording, I request review under WP:V to determine whether revision for precision is appropriate.
Requested outcome:
• Confirmation that article wording does not exceed what reliable sources state.• Review of whether current syndication status is accurately reflected.• Review of structural balance under WP:WEIGHT.• Identification of any wording that should be revised for sourcing precision.
Without addressing much of what you have to say, let me quickly note that the two sources you are suggesting for established weight (your item 2) are poor sources for that purpose. The modern Guinness book is a problem for Wikipedia in various uses, as explained atWP:GUINNESS -- they take payment for much of the material that is included, making them not an independent source. The article at The Hour was written by someone with a wiltonvillager.com email address, and the article notes that the Wilton Villager was at the time of writing one of your clients. As such, that is not an independent source. --Nat Gertler (talk)23:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the cited source states that a contract was not renewed or that a publication relationship changed, but does not explicitly state disciplinary removal or termination for cause, then wording such as “removed” may exceed what the source supports under WP:BLP and WP:V. Our article does not use the word "removed"; it says that "Universal Uclick declined to renew its contract with Parker". Indeed according to WikiBlame the article hasnever used the word "removed".Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk)12:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the heavy use of honorifics and the "educational legacy" section, which was entirely about his family and not about him. I'll keep an eye on it though the page obviously needs work. The entire first 5 paragraphs are just about titles conferred to him. --Reconrabbit16:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, we do currently have articles on every person who has ever been a member of the London Assembly; that doesn't necessarily mean that theyare all notable but I wouldn't be surprised if you have an uphill battle nominating them for deletion.Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk)12:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a discussion in these that reach consensus only comments from individual editors, I'll ping @Bearcat who mentioned that LA confers notability in that last AfD to see where they came to that conclusion from.Orange sticker (talk)12:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They're councillors in counties for areas of that county, and there are councillors for the county itself. Those county councils are for large areas. Having councillors and other councillors for larger areas is not something that's unique to the London assembly. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant that the interpretation of NPOL may have changed over time, but the consensus position certainly has been that city councillors at theglobal city level — such as New York City, Chicago, Toronto, Paris or London — were extended a presumption of notability that most other city councillors outside of that tier don't get, on the basis that they can often (although obviously not always) show far moreWP:GNG-worthy sourcing to pass NPOL #2 than most other city councillors can. It's documented atWP:POLOUTCOMES — "precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London". But of course, "tended to favour" is not the same thing as "absolutely guaranteed notability in all cases regardless" — peopleoften tend to interpret that as license to just write and source the bare minimum necessary to verify that the personexists, and then walk away without ever actually improving the article to an NPOL-compliant standard — but the general consensus position has indeed been that city councillors at theglobal city tier have more presumed notability than non-metropolitan city councillors do. And of course, Ifrequently come across articles about politicians at the NPOL#1 level whose articlesalso basically amount to "So-and-so is a national/state/provincial legislator who exists, the end" rather than actually saying or sourcing anythingsubstantive about them and their careers — but the depth of sourcing already presentin an article and the depth of sourcingavailable to beadded to the article if and when somebody actually makes an effort to improve it aren't necessarily always the same thing, which is why we have the concept of "presumed notability": for some classes of topic that meet certain specific criteria, a GNG-worthy level of sourcing is somewhere between "very likely" and "absolutely guaranteed" to exist out in the world even if the article isn't actually citing all or most of that in its current state, so those classes of topic get apresumption of notabilitypending the addition of the better sources it would take to really lock it in, but can absolutely still be deleted in the future if those better sources turn out to not exist. So you're perfectly free to list some of the London Assembly members for AFD discussions if you wish —consensus can change, after all, and "presumed notability" absolutelydoesn't mean "guaranteed notability even if the required level of sourcing never materializes" — but there certainly has been a consensus position that internationally famous metropolitanglobal city councillors get a presumption of notability that most other city councillors don't get, as documented by POLOUTCOMES. And yes, virtually all city councillors in places like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and Toronto do have articles as well. Or at least recent ones do — I cannot guarantee thathistorical city councillors in any of those cities have been comprehensively filled in all the way back to the cities' births, but we absolutely do have an article about every city councillor who's served in any of those cities in the "concurrent with the existence of Wikipedia" era for sure.Bearcat (talk)13:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, London Assembly members are not "city councillors". Each London borough has its own separate council and those councillors are not presumed notable. The London Assembly spans Greater London and is a regional assembly.Fences&Windows01:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly relevant here is that there are 75 parliamentary constituencies in London, while the London Assembly has 25 members: i.e. the latter each represent a larger proportion of the population. Clearly not directly comparable in terms of political power and influence, but maybe worth taking into account? A narrow interpretation of notability policy might support working fromWP:GNG, and assessing biographical notability on that basis, but I'd advocate erring towards 'presumption'. Per Bearcat above, it would seem fairly unlikely that many London Assembly members would fail to meet the standards commonly applied to individuals in similar positions for other major cities, and I'd argue that it isn't unreasonable to assume that Wikipedia readers would expect to find basic biographical information on such individuals in this case, even if it is a little on the stubby side. I'm not generally in favour of 'presumed notability', but if there is an argument for it anywhere, elected representatives in such contexts would seem to deserve it. Or rather our readers do, since being able to easily find out even a little about who is representing you would seem somewhat useful. We can't cover every local councillor everywhere, and shouldn't attempt to (the necessary sourcing simply doesn't exist to create meaningful biographies), but where the positiongenerally attracts the necessary WP:GNG standards, it makes sense to allow a little latitude in the odd marginal case.AndyTheGrump (talk)14:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the ambiguous mention of nepotism in the article to brief what it was that Noorani actually reported that led to the targetting of his family.
On 17 March 2025, Ahmad Noorani published a report alleging that relatives and close associates of Munir had interfered in key government appointments, securing top positions despite lacking merit or performance. The next day, about 20 armed men who identified themselves as police raided Noorani's family home and forcibly took away his two brothers to an undisclosed location. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) described the abduction as likely an act of retaliation for Noorani's reporting, while the Committee to Protect Journalists said that Noorani and his family's court petition linked the brothers' disappearance to his report on Munir. RSF further reported that local police denied any involvement.
It has been contended that this addition isWP:BLPVIO,WP:BLPGOSSIP,WP:UNDUE,WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I dispute that noting corruption in substance [not handwaving] (with proper attribution) by the 'most powerful person' in a country would violate any of those. Reporting which further still led to the kidnapping of the reporter's family. I find it quite amazing that we would state the targeting a journalist/kidnapping of a his family without exactly specifying the cause in the first place.
RSF: On 19 March in Islamabad, the capital, around twenty armed men abducted the two brothers of exiled journalist Ahmad Noorani shortly after the publication of his investigation into the nepotism of Pakistan’s army chief. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is outraged by this abduction, which is very likely an act of retaliation, and calls on the authorities to give information on the fate and whereabouts of the journalist’s brothers and ensure their immediate release. CPJ: “It is deeply concerning that journalist Asif Karim Khehtran, as well as Mohammad Saif ur Rehman Haider and Mohammad Ali, brothers of journalist Ahmad Noorani, have been forcibly disappeared. This is indicative of a severe media crackdown in Pakistan,” said Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “Authorities must ensure their safety, immediately release them, and respect the rule of law.”On March 17, Noorani published an investigative report detailing the alleged control that Pakistan’s army chief, General Asim Munir, has consolidated since assuming the country’s top military position in 2022. Both Noorani and the petition filed on behalf of his family in the Islamabad High Court claim that this report led to the enforced disappearance of his brothers.
Fact Focus conducted an interview with Hajra Sohail to question her about her unprecedented and seemingly inexplicable promotions, culminating in her appointment as CEO of an organization where she was merely a scholarship manager a few months earlier. Hajra’s tone was threatening, and rather than addressing the questions, she demanded to know who had instructed Fact Focus to investigate her appointment. She insisted that the federal education ministry should be asked how she was appointed to the position. When informed that the minister in charge at the time of her appointment,Madad Ali Sindhi, had told Fact Focus that she was rude and incompetent and that he had ordered her removal, Hajra dismissed his remarks, stating that he was no longer a minister and that Fact Focus should contact current officials instead. Efforts to reach the current federal education minister, Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui, for a response were unsuccessful, as he did not return calls. Hajra also denied that her rapid promotions and appointments had anything to do with being a cousin of Army Chief General Asim Munir. ... When Fact Focus askedArshad Hussain Shah about Babar Ali Shah’s involvement in his appointment, he did not deny it but instead maintained that both the leader of the house (former KPK CMMehmood Khan, who had by then joined thePTI parliamentarians) and the leader of the opposition (Akram Khan Durrani ofJUI-F) were involved in the decision. ‘You are asking me the wrong question,’ Arshad Hussain Shah told Fact Focus.
Questions:
A. Whether the alleged corruption/nepotism should be mentioned at Munir's article at all?
B. If yes, whether the expansion I made is inline with BLP and related guidelines?
I would say that every fromNoorani further stated that Syed Babar Ali Shah, Munir's maternal uncle.. is probably undue. That part is about corruption allegations against the uncle of the subject of the article, not the subject of the article. I don't think it should be included. It might be relevant to an article on corruption in Pakistan or an article about the uncle, but here the details seem like guilt by association. I know they attempt to put the abduction in context, but I don't think it's necessary and is to detached from the subject. The first sentence seems more due, as it directly relates to the claims made by Noorani against the subject. Is Fact Focus the only source for the claim, or have other sources reported on it in light of the abductions? --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested The first sentence is also supported by only this source, while there are hundreds of sources from the time whenMohsin Naqvi was appointed to these posts; none of them allege anything like that. This isWP:FRINGE, and he is also only speculating. He has no evidence that Naqvi was appointed solely because he is a relative of Munir's wife. Caretaker Chief Minister is a position for which there is no specific qualification required; they only have to follow the process written in the Constitution and appoint essentially anyone. Naqvi is a media executive and owner of24 News. Prior to him, people likeNajam Sethi andHasan Askari Rizvi, both journalists from the media with no prior administrative experience, served as Caretaker Chief Minister of Punjab. Alleging that there is some merit or qualification Naqvi did not meet is baseless, since there is no defined merit or qualification criterion for that role. We cannot simply add that allegation involving three living people just because one journalist presents it as guilt by association.WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires multiple reliable, independent third-party sources. Here, you would not only need multiple sources for the allegation but also sources explaining why it constitutes nepotism and how appointing him was against merit. Merely stating that he did not have prior administrative experience is not enough, as there is a first time for everything; I did not have any prior experience of editing, but one day I started editing.
As far as the abduction is concerned, that is also an allegation. No source clearly states that Munir abducted them or ordered their abduction; it is speculation that, since it happened after Noorani's report, it must have been done by Munir. I do not think an encyclopedia is meant for speculations.Sheriff |☎ 911 |19:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think FRINGE applies here, and the sentence doesn't say that Mohsin Naqvi was appointed due to nepotism - it says that Noorani reported that was the case. That Noorani made that claim before the abductions give context to those abductions. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested But again, no source even alleges that Munir abducted them or ordered any such thing. Moreover, there was a report in April 2025 that they were recovered fromKatcha dacoits. If no source alleges that he ordered the abduction, then why do we need the context?Sheriff |☎ 911 |20:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the abduction was retaliation for Noorani reporting was part of the pre-existing text, and seems supported by the RSF link. Is this discussion about the addition that you reverted or the pre-existing content? My comment is only about the new addition. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The RSF content saysReporters Without Borders (RSF) described the abduction as likely an act of retaliation for Noorani's reporting, "Likely" is speculation, and I think including it is already aWP:BLPVIO. Why do we need to add new content that provides context to speculation? That would also beWP:SYNTH. To include that first sentence, we would need a single source stating that Noorani reported Naqvi's appointment was at the behest of Munir and that, because of that report, Munir abducted his brothers or ordered their abduction. Only then would the new statement be due.Sheriff |☎ 911 |22:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From the RSF report "The day before, Ahmad Noorani had published an investigation on his website into the army chief of staff, General Asim Munir,", adding details of that report seem relevant. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested RSF mentions the report; RSF does not mention all the allegations, including the names of all the people. Similarly, we do not need to mention the names of individuals but rather summarise the report, which we already do, as the section starts with:On 17 March 2025, Ahmad Noorani published a report alleging that relatives and close associates of Munir had interfered in key government appointments, securing top positions despite lacking merit or performance. This is good enough coverage for the context of the abductions. Plus, I would like to expand this discussion and ask for the removal of the existing content, especially the part covering abductions. RSF states that the abductions occurred after the publication of the report and are likely retaliation for the report. Why assume that the retaliation must have been carried out by Munir? There were other people mentioned in Noorani's report. Why is it necessary that Munir must have retaliated? Naqvi, as interior minister, was powerful enough to retaliate, and the uncle is powerful enough to retaliate. According to Noorani himself, the uncle is very powerful. It is possible they might have retaliated, so why include mention of the abductions in Munir's article?Sheriff |☎ 911 |21:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested: The article directly links the influence of his uncle (and the nepotism stemming therefrom) to Munir.
Syed Babar Ali Shah, who had been based in London before General Asim Munir’s appointment as Army Chief, relocated to Islamabad and quickly emerged as one of the most powerful figures in the final months of the coalition government led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, which completed its term in August 2023. Leveraging his influence, Babar interfered in the functioning of government ministries and departments, securing key appointments for his close associates.
Also, while I did summarize the appointment of Munir's first cousin is substantially linked to army intervention in the article.
Interestingly all of the points raised above and below were rebutted by Noorani in an explanatory video report:[15].
Instagram video you linked would be considered a primary source. The text you quoted above nowhere states that Munir instructed Babar to carry out these activities. Also, no one is disputing the abduction; what is being disputed here is that no source says Munir ordered it, and the Dawn source you linked does not even mention Munir in the report. I am not certain about the general reliability status of the Indian websites Bhaskar and India.com, and also particularly when it comes to reporting on the Pakistani army chief, but they also only state that Munir's relatives are doing this or that; they never say it is being done at Munir's behest.Sheriff |☎ 911 |00:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear what you are arguing for here. If you want to disclude the entire section, which your statements to different editors here point towards, then please make that clear. Though I see no consensus for that.
If you only dispute the recent additions, please state that. Though again, no one here agress with blanking/nuking those completely either.
Yes, I am now advocating the exclusion of the entire abduction part. It isWP:UNDUE. RSF states that the abduction was likely retaliation for the report but does not specify who retaliated. The report names several individuals, including Mohsin Naqvi and the uncle. Any of them could have retaliated, so why add it to Munir's article?Sheriff |☎ 911 |02:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the claim added to the article is about the uncle, not the subject of the article. Content, especially contentious content, should be directly about the subject. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, adding his relatives and allegations against them is relevant to nepotism charges. Maybe the writing can be shortened to only be about Noorani's main allegations.Omen2019 (talk)16:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will start with the context given here first. Munir was appointed CDF in December 2025, months after the Noorani report, and he has been described as the most powerful person in the country by some opinion pieces, so those need to be taken with a grain of salt. Regardless, he was Army Chief when Noorani's report was published. Noorani's report itself fails many journalistic standards. It uses biased and non-neutral language and can only be described as an opinionated, analytical, and rather speculative piece. Language such as "seemingly inexplicable" cannot be described as neutral phrasing. The excerpt given by Fact Focus here by Gotothro has only one mention of Munir, where Hajra denies his involvement. Noorani is completely speculating that there could have been Munir's involvement in those appointments, but he never states this with certainty. He speculates that since Hajra is a relative of Munir, she must have been promoted at his behest. He also speculates that Munir's uncle must have been involved in Arshad's appointment as chief minister. However, Munir's uncle is responsible for his own actions.
Regarding the abduction, RSF says it occurred after Noorani's report; it does not say Munir carried it out. The coincidence of it occurring after the report does not mean that Munir did it. We cannot speculate. RSF further speculates that the abduction is very likely an act of retaliation, but speculation remains speculation. Regardless, most of the encyclopedic content, including some speculative material from RSF and CPJ, is already covered in the article. There was also a report by another journalist from April 2025 stating that the brothers were recovered fromKatcha dacoits. I believe that including content based purely on speculative reporting would be aWP:BLPVIO. Also,WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires multiple third-party independent sources, and Fact Focus is the only source where the names of these six living people are mentioned, and that too in a speculative sense. Hajra, Irum, Babar, and Jahangir, four individuals out of the total six, are non-notable, and I believeWP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE would also apply to them, which states:Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. I do not think it would qualify as "treating with special care" if we include content based on a single speculative source.
Finally, one side being described as the most powerful man and the other being a journalist should have no bearing on our decision-making as Wikipedia editors. We cannot and should not treat the most powerful man with vindication simply because he is described that way in some analyses while the other side is a journalist. We must not take sides. His article is already enough of anWP:ATTACKPAGE. Anyone unhappy with him wants to throw everything negative about him into his article, even if it is mere speculation. Opponents of the current government are unhappy because they think he is to blame for their misery, and there are folks in pain due to the2025 India–Pakistan conflict who want to take that pain out at every opportunity they can, but Wikipedia is not the place to take it out.Sheriff |☎ 911 |19:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro Nothing in that comment was in reply to you or directed towards you. That is why it was a standalone comment without any indentation. It was a general statement regarding theAsim Munir article becoming aWP:ATTACKPAGE since the conflict. I have been seeing that behaviour for months and have been removing attacking material that violatesWP:NPOV.Sheriff |☎ 911 |21:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the article is an attack page then bring those issues here so that they may indeed be discussed and resolved, not merely handwaved away to blank other substansive content.
The above reads more towards nuking the entirety of the section (rather than the recent addition) which in light of RSF, CPJ, Dawn etc. is an unserious argument. No actual RS disputes the fact that the reporter was targeted by official authorities for reporting on the army chief, that simply cannot be meandered through.
Will avoid the OR source criticism. The source itself is solid (pretty well settled at RSN) whatever opinions ofWP:BIASED that maybe made.
At this point I am seeing a lot of policies and guidelines being cited without substantially addressing how they apply and how this is different from any of the other BLPs covered at enwiki.
PS: Munir was still the army chief at the time of the report. That he is the real powerhead has been adduced since that time and is indeed not from the mention of certain opeds but the entirety of any substantial coverage profiling the BLP.Gotitbro (talk)21:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The already existing text is written from a neutral point of view and cites and even attributes the claims to reliable sources; it obviously isn't BLPVIO. Regarding the additional material, I think it'sWP:DUE enough, since the sources connect it to the subject and it's all mentioned in the context of the coverage on the subject; how distant or close the relative is isn't particularly relevant. regards,TryKid[dubious –discuss]23:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TryKid Your statement appears to be a blanket assertion without explaining why you believe the existing content is not aWP:BLPVIO and why you think the proposed content isWP:DUE. Therefore, I will address this point by point. To begin, why do you think this isWP:DUE?Noorani further stated that Syed Babar Ali Shah, Munir's maternal uncle, had secured key appointments for his close associates in the government including of Arshad Hussain Shah as the caretaker chief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Ahmad Ishaq Jahangir as Director General of the Federal Investigation Agency and his daughter Syeda Hajra Sohail as CEO of the Pakistan Education Endowment Fund. Where does any source state that Munir facilitated his uncle in securing key appointments for his associates (kindly share relevant quotes)? And how do the uncle's actions become due in Munir's article? Please cite the relevant policy language instead of making blanket statements.Sheriff |☎ 911 |03:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Fact Focus article states:
Syed Babar Ali Shah, who had been based in London before General Asim Munir’s appointment as Army Chief, relocated to Islamabad and quickly emerged as one of the most powerful figures in the final months of the coalition government led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, which completed its term in August 2023.
The article in general is about the nepotistic influence of the relatives of the subject on the government. This information seems straightforwardly due in a section about corruption and nepotism.TryKid[dubious –discuss]06:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TryKid Nope, definitely not. Uncle moved back from London and quickly emerged as one of the most powerful figures. How is it Munir's doing? Why should we add this to Munir's article? This is pure speculation on the part of the author. There is ambiguity there. It will be straightforwardlyWP:BLPVIO.Sheriff |☎ 911 |16:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds pretty credulous. In any case, it's "speculation" by a reliable source whose reporting has been used and cited by other reliable sources. BLP doesn't prevent articles from talking about corruption allegations against very public figures who are the supreme military (and executive) authority in their country.TryKid[dubious –discuss]19:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability does not equate to inclusion. We definitely do not include speculation. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not necessary to include speculation, especially when it is covered by only a single source.WP:PUBLICFIGURE clearly asks for multiple reliable third-party sources.Sheriff |☎ 911 |02:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing a growing affirmation for retaining the nepotism allegations and subsequent kidnapping, including specific details thereof, I am propsoing a draft. Have shifted Hajra's appointment directly under Munir (in my earlier proposal she had been listed under her father Syed Babar Ali Shah) more in line with the source[19]:
Hajra Sohail, daughter of Syed Babar Ali Shah and the first cousin of the army chief General Asim Munir was a scholarship manager in a federal government organization Pakistan Education Endowment fund (PEEF) previously known as National Endowment Scholarship for Talent (NEST) in November 2022 when General Asim Munir was appointed Pakistan Army Chief. This organization operated under the control of the ministry of federal education and professional training. ... Nonetheless, the Prime Minister’s office made it clear that the nomination of Syeda Hajra Sohail, who was already a manager at PEEF, was coming directly from the army headquarters in Rawalpindi. ... However, duringDr. Saqib’s initial visit to the PEEF office in Sector H-9/4 of Islamabad, an alleged heated exchange took place between him and Hajra Sohail over some issue. Dr. Amjad Saqib may have forgotten about the incident immediately, but Hajra promptly complained to her cousin. ... Following this incident, according to the PEEF officials, GHQ Rawalpindi directed the unseen security forces on the ground in Islamabad to prevent Dr. Amjad Saqib from entering the PEEF office again. Following the incident, GHQ also informed the Prime Minister’s Office. ... Following the Dr. Amjad Saqib episode, the federal education ministry finally appointed Hajra Sohail as the CEO of PEEF without following any due process. Just months after her cousin’s appointment as army chief, Hajra ascended to the top position of a federal government organization where she had previously been an ordinary manager. ... Fact Focus conducted an interview with Hajra Sohail to question her about her unprecedented and seemingly inexplicable promotions, culminating in her appointment as CEO of an organization where she was merely a scholarship manager a few months earlier. Hajra’s tone was threatening, and rather than addressing the questions, she demanded to know who had instructed Fact Focus to investigate her appointment. She insisted that the federal education ministry should be asked how she was appointed to the position. ... Hajra also denied that her rapid promotions and appointments had anything to do with being a cousin of Army Chief General Asim Munir.
Draft proposal here:
On 17 March 2025, Ahmad Noorani published a report alleging that relatives and close associates of Munir had interfered in key government appointments, securing top positions despite lacking merit or performance.Noorani reported thatMohsin Naqvi, a close relative of Munir's wife Irum Asim, was appointed as thechief minister of Punjab,chairman of Pakistan Cricket Board andinterior minister and his first cousin Syeda Hajra Sohail as the CEO of thePakistan Education Endowment Fund at Munir's behest after he became the Chief of the Army Staff. Noorani further stated that Syed Babar Ali Shah, Munir's maternal uncle, had secured key appointments for his close associates in the government including ofArshad Hussain Shah as the caretakerchief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Ahmad Ishaq Jahangir as Director General of theFederal Investigation Agency. The next day, about 20 armed men who identified themselves as police raided Noorani's family home and forcibly took away his two brothers to an undisclosed location. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) described the abduction as likely an act of retaliation for Noorani's reporting, while the Committee to Protect Journalists said that Noorani and his family's court petition linked the brothers' disappearance to his report. RSF further reported that local police denied any involvement.
There is definitely no consensus here for your new additions. ActivelyDisinterested only vouched for the Naqvi part, which was successfully challenged by me with solid reasons. TryKid's reasoning was successfully challenged by me as well. Consensus is never a vote or majority; it is based on policy-based arguments. You also should not be pinging editors who previously agreed with you on another forum. We came to this forum to get the opinion of regular contributors here, but you pinged everyone who agreed with you previously on another forum. There is no consensus here for the inclusion of any new parts.Sheriff |☎ 911 |01:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"you pinged everyone who agreed with you previously on another forum", pingedeveryone who was involved inall previous discussions, including you. The most basic of procedural discourse. The allegation that there was selective pinging/canvassing is baseless. Take this to ANI or any apt forum but this is unlikely to be sustained.
"We came to this forum to get the opinion of regular contributors here"
Anyone visiting this board can of course comment here but that would not devalue any of the comments already made here or elsehwere. Boards are a forum to engage in discussion to resolve disputes among editors, not for vetting by "regular contributors", that is without any basis in enwiki P&G.
I don't think anything has been "successfully challenged", tacking onto every reply is not that, as hardly anyone has been convinced here of BLPVIO or any other policy cited to keep out what is the barest of mentions across any BLP one might come upon at enwiki.
Much ink has been spilt here by different editors here regarding this and with effective consensus against the removals, the effort should be to consolidate what and how to include from this.Gotitbro (talk)05:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Boards are a forum to engage in discussion to resolve disputes among editors, not for vetting by "regular contributors". If you are going to ping everyone who agreed with you on the previous forum, they will likely agree here as well. When posting on a forum to resolve a dispute, there is no need to ping anyone. Let new editors chime in instead of inviting those who have already expressed an opinion.I don't think anything has been "successfully challenged" Everything and every point made here has been challenged by me with reference to relevant policies. I am still waiting for a response on why we should forgo the multiple sources requirement inWP:PUBLICFIGURE, or why we should ignoreWP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and mention the names of non-notable people. Why is it necessary to include speculation when there is clear guidance that not everything verifiable is included? And why does the content regarding abductions belong in the Munir article when RSF does not name Munir as the abductor, but says it was retaliation for the report? Why should we assume it was Munir who retaliated and not anyone else mentioned, such as Naqvi or the uncle? You cannot ignore policy-based questions and claim consensus. Consensus is policy-based; beyond policy there is no consensus, no matter how many editors agree. If a source does not allege something, we cannot include it, regardless of how many editors support inclusion. Similarly, ifWP:PUBLICFIGURE orWP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE states something clearly, consensus cannot override those guidelines. There is no consensus in the conclusion of this discussion as it stands.Sheriff |☎ 911 |11:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was a separate discussion for SPS at RSN, there is absolutely no problem in getting views ofall participants in related previous discussions regardless of where they stand. Again, if you truly believe any procedural flaws have been had take it to ANI but let us not sidetrack from the main discussion here.
As for the BLP policies, your interpretation of them stretches them thin enough to against everything at enwiki. No one is ignoring policy questions here which have been refuted in content as well as application, here and elsewhere. Nothing has been implied in wikivoice or otherwise, to suggest actual wrongdoing but we are indeed following sources in stating the sequence of events. A myriad similar articles can be listed here without much contention. Lest we blank all of those as is being advocated here.
Policies and consensus will be interpreted by editors not unilateral declarations of what constitues them. If anything this is minor enough to have not been trawled over two boards but here we are. The lone voice of dissent has come from one invovled editor, it is pretty clear where things stand.Gotitbro (talk)13:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gotitbro, could you please provide the reliable sources other than Fact Focus that support your proposed text? I think the BLPVIO and UNDUE objections from SherrifIsInTown are likely spurious and come across as wikilawyering andWP:BLUDGEON, but I want to see the backing this material has in several sources.Fences&Windows15:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Fences and windows: The kidnapping stemming from reporting on the nepotism has been widely covered.
he has been the subject of multiple accusations in Pakistan since the publication of his investigation into the country’s army chief, General Asim Munir, in March 2025. His report claimed that some of the general’s close associates had been appointed to senior positions despite lacking adequate qualifications. The day after this investigation was published, both of the journalist’s brothers were victims ofenforced disappearance for 33 days. They subsequently lost their jobs, had their bank accounts frozen, their passports cancelled and their names placed on lists of persons prohibited from leaving the country. One of them was prevented from leaving Pakistan on two occasions. The journalist’s mother saw all her bank accounts successively closed, reopened by court order, and then frozen without explanation. "The misuse of the judiciary and the law to target this journalist shows a worrying increase in authoritarianism. Since the publication of his investigation into the Pakistani army chief’s alleged nepotism, Ahmad Noorani has been subjected to relentless, multifaceted persecution, with reprisals against him and his family. ..." Célia Mercier [Head of the RSF South Asia Desk] His investigative website Fact Focus, known for its reporting on corruption involving senior army officials and politicians, has been blocked by the authorities in Pakistan since 2022.
In early December, an Islamabad court issued an arrest warrant for exiled Pakistani journalist Ahmad Noorani for allegedly spreading propaganda against the army on social media, according to multiple news reports. Noorani, a co-founder of investigative news site FactFocus, told CPJ he was unaware when the case was registered against him or its details. He said the arrest warrant and his status as an “absconder” effectively barred him from traveling to countries with close ties to Pakistan because he could face immediate detention. Noorani is facing multiple other cases in Pakistan, which he believes are linked to his investigative reporting on alleged interference by Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, in civilian institutions and corruption by senior army leaders. Noorani said his two brothers, who were abducted from his Islamabad home in March 2025 and disappeared for more than a month, continue to face harassment. His family has been placed on a travel blacklist, their bank accounts frozen, and both brothers have lost their jobs.
Here is what Gotitbro is proposing to add:Noorani reported thatMohsin Naqvi, a close relative of Munir's wife Irum Asim, was appointed as the chief minister of Punjab, chairman of Pakistan Cricket Board and interior minister and his first cousin Syeda Hajra Sohail as the CEO of the Pakistan Education Endowment Fund at Munir's behest after he became the Chief of the Army Staff. Noorani further stated that Syed Babar Ali Shah, Munir's maternal uncle, had secured key appointments for his close associates in the government including ofArshad Hussain Shah as the caretakerchief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Ahmad Ishaq Jahangir as Director General of theFederal Investigation Agency. The myriad of sources other than Fact Focus they shared in their latest comment. I checked both RSF sources, all three CPJ sources, the BBC, Dawn, and the PPF. None of'em cover even a wee bit of what they are proposing to add.Sheriff |☎ 911 |20:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't any presentation otherwise. The kidnapping bit is covered by multiple RS which you also advocate for removal above:
Yes, I am now advocating the exclusion of the entire abduction part. It is WP:UNDUE.
Gotitbro, could you please provide the reliable sources other than Fact Focus that support your proposed text? Fences and windows clearly asked you above to provide reliable sources other than Fact Focus that support your proposed text. The main issue that brought us to this forum was your additions supported only by FF. I raised that you need multiple sources for that. If someone asks you to provide sources other than FF, then you are supposed to provide other sources that support what FF covers. When you provide many sources, it signals to others that all these sources support what FF supports, but they actually do not. I just wanted to clarify that point in my comment.Sheriff |☎ 911 |23:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Phillip J. Long stated "In Historical Jesus studies, the idea that Jesus claimed to be God is usually met with derision and accusations that the author is engaging in apologetics."[1]
BLP concern regarding the Nicole Junkermann article. The page currently has a section describing a personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein based largely on flight logs, released documents, and other primary-source material, with wording that frames friendship and long-term correspondence. I’m concerned this relies on primary-source interpretation and may give undue weight in a living-person biography. The article was recently recreated, AfD closed with no consensus, and there has been edit warring over this section. Requesting an independent BLP review.Alejandro.91her (talk)10:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that it relies on primary sources and that has undue weight is misleading and does not represent reality. A small paragraph has 6 secondary reliable and independent sources. It is carefully worded and excludes mentions of the media like asking Epstein to have a baby with her. The paragraph was build with consensus8ZeitundZeit8 (talk)13:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the record the paragraph in question is the one below. As you can see it's well referenced with 7 reliable and independent sources and it's carefully worded. WP:BLPUNDEL statesany editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.. This doesn't apply here as it complies with Wikipedia content policies and the restoration has been done with significant change in wording and in sources. Everything has been done with consensus. The paragraph is this:
Junkermann had contacts with Epstein as far back as 2002 as she appears in the flight logs of his plane.[1]
Re "this doesn't apply here", that is incorrect. Everyone thinks that their edits comply with policy, that you think yours does is not relevant. If your edits are objected to, it is up to you to build a case and obtain a consensus for inclusion(perWP:ONUS) or point to an existing consensus.331dot (talk)16:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the progress of the paragraph in history? How can you claim that the addition was not done with consensus? The paragraph has been added little be little with clear consensus. Can you please explain how come WP:BLPUNDEL applies here? The addition has been done with significant change in wording and in sources. There are 7 new sources and are even more if needed.8ZeitundZeit8 (talk)16:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The opening comment of this BLP post is misleading. There were no primary links to files. All of this Epstein-related material was secondarily sourced to reliable journalistic sources discussing the Epstein files documents like theDaily Telegraph[31], Forbes (reliable Forbes staff article, not Forbes contributor)[32] andDie Welt[33] These sources very specifically discuss Junkermann's relationship with Epstein in an non-incidental way. As much as I find myself loath to be on the same side of a SPA like 8ZeitundZeit8 whose sole reason to be on Wikipedia seems to be to add negative material to a BLP subject's article, I think they're right here, and the Epstein material is due to include.Hemiauchenia (talk)16:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note as someone living in Germany, regarding the referenced sources, there are two which may be suboptimal:
t-online is more of a news aggregator website comparable to Yahoo News or MSN. It's not a "go-to" or first choice news source for most people as far as I'm aware. It's not a news website that other news sources would usually reference (like when BBC would broadcast a story starting with "According to a report in The Guardian...", you won't hear/readDeutsche Welle saying/writing "According to a report on t-online.de...", or at least I've never heard other news sources reference any reports by t-online.de)
Die Welt is a newspaper that might be referenced by other media but I feel like they tend to be on the scandalous side of things. I know the enwiki article says that it's in competition with quality newspapers like Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung, but the dewiki article points out that this statement is in reference to the number of subscribers: Die Welt has a lot of subscribers like the above quality newspapers, however, number of subscribers does not say much about quality given that the best-selling newspaper in Germany and Europe is theBild (which is absolutely not suitable for BLPs, see the very long reception and criticism section on dewiki [where Bild and Die Welt are even named in one and the same sentence based on a political scientist's statement]). For more details see the dewiki article on Die Welt, in particular the section "Kontroversen", where it says that Die Welt made a number of press codex violations, is engaging in campaigning, and trying to appeal to conspiracy theorists, etc.
Fair enough about Die Welt, I'm not German so I can't really comment. The Telegraph is known for its strong right-wing skew about controversial issues such as transgender healthcare, but for it's worth Wikipedia contributors generally still consider it solidly reliable for facts.Hemiauchenia (talk)17:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah being opinionated may be OK as long as they get the facts right, but Die Welt got reprimanded by the Press Council recently (December 2025), and it doesn't make them look too well on that end either:Der Presserat hat gegen „Welt.de“ eine Rüge ausgesprochen, wegen irreführender Aussagen über EU-Förderverträge für NGOs. Die NGOs hätten außerdem nicht hinreichend Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme bekommen. Das Gremium bewertete insgesamt vier Artikel als „gravierende Irreführung der Leserschaft und einen schweren Verstoß gegen die journalistische Sorgfaltspflicht“.[34]Nakonana (talk)17:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
^Brewster, Thomas."Epstein Could Have Made $100 Million On A Secret Police Tech Investment".Forbes. Retrieved11 February 2026.former treasury secretary Larry Summers, who wrote her a recommendation letter for an exclusive World Economic Forum club called Young Global Leaders on Epstein's request
I work with Jahm Najafi and I am writing to request if it may be possible to remove the Close Connection Contributor tag at the top of his page, which dates back to 2017. As far as I am aware, since that date the article has been cleaned up in line with Wikipedia policy and has not had this issue since. Thank you so much for your help.~2026-10489-62 (talk)13:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for bringing this up to our attention. I am about to remove the tag. Editors weren't as careful about tagging back in 2017, but that tag was put there with zero discussion on the article talk page, so how is anyone expected to either fix the problem (if it still exists) or remove the tag (if it doesn't)? --Guy Macon (talk)14:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's best to nominate for deletion if this low-profile individual is not happy with their article? I don't think fulfilling some arbitrary "women in red" criterion is worth distressing actual female scientists over.Hemiauchenia (talk)21:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Virginia Giuffre: retracted allegation in the lead
This doesn't concern a BLP specifically, but a sentence mentioning a living person on a dead figures biography article.
Over onVirginia Giuffre, userJtbobwaysf removedthis from the lead, reasoning on the talk page (Talk:Virginia Giuffre#Derschowitz in lead) that because Derschowitz is alive, and the allegation was retracted, it cannot be mentioned in Virginia's lead. Jtbobwasf might be right, but I wanted to check and see if such a rule exists for a BLP (I cannot see it), and would it apply in a dead persons biography who is famous for her allegations of sex trafficking?
BothTristario and I think it is worth including,because she has retracted it and because is covered in the body significantly. In addition, it related to Giuffre's allegations of Epstein operating of a large sex trafficking ring, that the FBI has struggled to corroborate, noting her inconsistent stories[36]
Alan Dershowitz is a living person last time I checked.WP:BLP applies on all pages, not just on articles of the BLP subject. It certainly applies on the article you mentioned. The sentence that I removed was so grossly undue it was ridiculous and it is odd it is even being discussed here. The article subject Giuffre was mostly known for her association to Epstein and then probably the infamous prince she was photographed with. Hardly at all notable for her alleged relationship to Dershowitz. Why was the article applying this weight to retracted allegations (we can also call those lies btw).WP:NOTDRAMA would also apply to 'i allege someone did something, no wait, i changed my mind and/or lied he didnt do it'. We can cover some of it in the article body, but when you add NOTDRAMA to BLP and LEAD its pretty clear how we treat this. Thanks!Jtbobwaysf (talk)08:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't unconfirmed gossip, it was an allegation that Virginia publicly made, and later retracted before her death. The sentence you removed is quite clear she retracted it, so it is not promoting "lies", it is refuting one. This retracted allegation has significant coverage in the body of the article, so warrants sentence in the lead. Otherwise the reader has to trawl through large sections of in the body to actually realise this was retracted. I'm not seeing the rationale for covering this all in detail in the body, but making some arbitrary decision to exclude a sentence in the lead because Alan is alive.Zenomonoz (talk)08:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An allegation is gossip, especially when it is later retracted. We shouldnt be covering this type of stuff in general, not only on this article. Or give a small amount a weight to the controversy.Jtbobwaysf (talk)21:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is it covered in the body? What is amount of body space dedicated to this allegation compared to others there (like Andrew) in the body?
The lede mention then shouldn't be much of a bother, and would appear to be especially relevant considering that the person in question was the lawyer of the prime accused.Gotitbro (talk)21:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thats assuming the amount in the body is due as well. Have a look at it see if you think the amount in the body is due. Its a lot of play by play of various lawsuits, which were all dropped in the end.Jtbobwaysf (talk)21:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Can other editors please weigh in to build some consensus? Jtbobwaysf seems to be arguing we should now delete the whole allegation from the body of the article... Giuffre made these allegations for years, and then retracted them. We reflect the reliable sources.Zenomonoz (talk)22:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt a blanking or nuking of very serious allegations of sexual abuse will gain any sort of consensus. I see the assertion above that this is gossip, also untenable.Gotitbro (talk)22:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: BLPRESTORE: removal vs. administrative deletions
Hi, I would like to change the title of the article in her real name "Eske Schlüters". (In the article below the name is written correctly, but the title is still wrong. I already changed some informations in the article, but I am not able to change the title. How is it possible? Could you, please, change it or help me how to change it myself?Thank you.besteske— Precedingunsigned comment added byEs otten (talk •contribs)14:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's the one. I tried to explain this to the editor in question but I don't think they quite get it, or understand why this is important based on our conversation at their talk page. I don't think it's out of malice but genuine confusion. Maybe someone else would have a better way of getting it across?Clovermoss🍀(talk)17:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see howWP:BLPPRIMARY applies if we are talking about the name of a person, which can be confirmed by the business which gives them notability. Particularly since it's from a public notice rather than court records or anything which might lend private information. Most debates around middle names on here are whether to use unreliables like imdb, etc. I defer to the will of the broader consensus, but this reads to me, as a case ofWP:JUST, as it gives nothing other than the name of the person, rather than any further assertion. My argument would be this differentiates the person further from a fictional character.--Simtropolitan(talk)17:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Donot use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Emphasis in original. "This is his name" is the assertion and afaict, this is the kind of public document the policy is talking about. And from where I'm sitting, I see nothing obvious in the source given that this is the droid we're looking for. I think that is one of the reasons we have BLPPRIMARY, we don't trust ourselves to read these sources correctly.
The policy warns against the use of court records or public documents tosupport assertions, particularly when assertions are interpretive or controversial. In this case, no such assertion is being made — the name is taken directly from the LLC's inclusion which is the subject’s notability, with no additional claim or implication. I would argue this is a neutral identification, not synthesis or speculation, and falls within the reasonable use of a primary source underWP:JUST andWP:V. It’s a small, factual detail used for completeness and to distinguish the real person, tied to their public-facing notability. --Simtropolitan(talk)17:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting doesn't render it notable. But is it, in my viewWP:Encylopedic_content, whereas to leave it as is, when the information is present, is to render it the appearance ofWP:Promo. This is the last bit I have to add as a matter of thought. I'll leave it to others to chime in.--Simtropolitan(talk)18:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how not having the extra name renders the impression ofWP:Promo, but that's me. Your first link states"Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." IMO, that further supports leaving the extra name out.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)18:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
