We're getting a whole lot of new accounts trying to override the RfC consensus not to discuss her voter registration. I've done a 3rd revert becauseWP:3RRNO generally allows that to protect a BLP page but Ireally don't like even the appearance of edit warring and would appreciate some other page watchers.Simonm223 (talk)19:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done two actions:

1. Protected "Sydney Sweeney": Extending protection do to wholesale disregard forTalk:Sydney Sweeney/Archive 1#RfC: Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation ([Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (expires 20:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)) [Move=Require extended confirmed access] (expires 20:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC))
2. Configured pending changes settings for Sydney Sweeney: Extending protection do to wholesale disregard forTalk:Sydney Sweeney/Archive 1#RfC: Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation [Auto-accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (expires 20:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC))

Peaceray (talk)20:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I really spelldue asdo? Oh, well...Peaceray (talk)20:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sincerely.Simonm223 (talk)20:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like something which will be a long term issue.LDW5432 (talk)15:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alerting that there is a debate in theZohran Mamdani talk page about whether to include in the "Political positions" section within his biography the controversy surrounding whether or not he agrees with the sloganGlobalize the Intifada (which relates to thecontentious topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict).Green Montanan (talk)16:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Mamdani himself has not used the phrase, including it in his biography seemsWP:UNDUE. There is a fairly obvious smear campaign in progress to associate him with the phrase. The argument that Green Montanan and others have advanced seems to be that that very campaign renders his association with the phrase 'controversial' and thus deserving of inclusion. Conversely, I would argue that it's irrelevant to the man himself, and that including it violates BLP by supporting the smear campaign.GenevieveDEon (talk)17:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Mamdani actually addressed the phrase, even though he did not utter the words that make up the phrase, means that he is associated with the phrase. Mentioning the fact that his comments about the phrase generated controversy is not a BLP violation.Green Montanan (talk)17:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's a smear campaign, it's clearly a significant controversy about a public figure, so we should include it. It's gotten significant coverage in national news, it's kinda nuts we don't currently mention it at all.Loki (talk)19:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is public debate on his use of the phrase then it should be included.LDW5432 (talk)14:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mamdani has uttered the phrase and he is affiliated with Nerdeen Kiswani and her organization WOL the person who created the phrase initially [[1]] [[2]]. His refusal to initially condemn the phrase was also covered by outlets like politico [[3]]Agnieszka653 (talk)16:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources has him using the phrase. Get a grip.Nomoskedasticity (talk)16:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mamdani's refusal to condemn the phrase was discussed in multiple GREL sources,[4][5][6] as was his subsequent stated intention to discourage its use.[7][8][9] This easily meets BLP and should be included.Tioaeu8943 (talk)19:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input,Tioaeu8943 &Agnieszka653. The main concern over atTalk:Zohran Mamdani is whether or not the content meetsWP:DUE. If you think it does, please voice your opinion in the article's talk page.Green Montanan (talk)19:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already said so there, but to bring it to this discussion, the application of DUE at the talk page makes no sense whatsoever.Tioaeu8943 (talk)11:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• So far, it has only really come up in the context of the election; I don't think it can reasonably be called a significant aspect of his biography going forwards, so it'd be undue there. Since the election is today, we can just wait until a few months after that and see if it still hasWP:SUSTAINED coverage after that indicates that it might be a relevant part of his bio, but I'm skeptical. As it is, almost all the sources focused on him regarding it seem to be from late June or early July, which suggests that it's already faded and lacked sustained coverage in the first place. --Aquillion (talk)19:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Mamdani has stated positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict, which are noted in his BLP article. Any issue or question on which he has not stated a position should not be noted in the "political positions" section of his personal BLP. The fact that some people want him to state a position or that sources mention that he has not taken a position do not change this basic fact. This conversation would be different if the issue in question were especially material to the administration of the city or state of New York.GreatCaesarsGhost17:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Honestly, theIsrael and Gaza genocide is already long and repetitive. If he has stated positions on Palestinian self-determination, it might be worth replacing some of the repetitive stuff with a sentence about that. Talking about what he hasnot said about a slogan related to Palestinian resistance seems UNDUE.Guettarda (talk)18:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate attention is needed atList of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11, where I just removed numerous entries featuring the names of unconvicted suspects in mostly "terroristic threats" charges. Beyond the obvious BLP issues, there's a compelling NOTNEWS case for removing that content. If someone with more experience addressing such lists of suspects without convictions, please reply here. I'm fairly certain revdel may be appropriate as copyvios were also present. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)00:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please go to the article's talk page to discuss why you believe so much information should be deleted.LDW5432 (talk)15:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LDW5432: consensus is not required to remove blatant violations ofWP:BLPCRIME. In this case, that is the naming of non-public figures who are suspects in—but have not been convicted for—crimes. If you are aware of any of those specific incidents leading to convictions, you are encouraged to discuss their restoration to the article on the talk page. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)16:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiPbritti, I cleaned up all personal information from the table and made sure it doesn't violateWP:BLPCRIME anymore. Thank you for the advice.LDW5432 (talk)22:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that revdel should be used on old revisions as there is personal information there.LDW5432 (talk)22:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I pause on using revdel as the content was cited to reliable sources and I don't believe RD2 applies ("Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little to no encyclopedic or project value, or violates our biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. "). Some of those cases likely resulted in conviction, but if the content is revdelled that makes it harder for non-admins to check for more recent coverage.Fences&Windows00:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reem Alsalem this one..

The whole article is a straight up hit piece, but the intro especially is absolutely stone cold.

Reducing this woman’s extensive career to being an “anti transgender activist” as though she’s some gronk with a sky news talk show. A woman who has consulted for “UN departments, agencies and programmes such as UN-Women, OHCHR, UNICEF and IOM, as well as for non-governmental organizations, think tanks and academia.” Including for the ICC prosecutors office.

This “anti trans activist”, in her time so far as special rapporteur has completed 6 country reports. 5 of these reports (uk, Libya, Mongolia, Poland & turkey) mention transgender people.

One of the reports, the one for the uk, talks about transgender women in a way that could be considered “anti transgender”. The other 4 reports, contain information about the persecution/marginalisation and lack of rights for transgender people in that country… Obviously in a critical “do better” manner.

Eg from the Poland report-Women and girls that are lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination.” “The absence of legal standards recognizing sexual orientation and gender identity and the fact that these grounds are not recognized as grounds of discrimination means that victims do not feel safe reporting violence.”

The findings & suggestions she makes to the countries telling them to protect transgender ppl in the reports, are some pretty interesting conclusions to come to from an “anti transgender” activist.

The thematic report she did “Sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues”, and the one about women’s sport, have been criticised by many organisations. But how tf does this define her & her whole career to be an “anti transgender activist”. She also did a thematic report on violence against indigenous women, one on violence in custody cases, and another on climate change- do these things make her an indigenous, family law and environmental activist?

In her capacity as a UN expert she is constantly releasing & co-signing press statements. There’s about 300 hundred u can find on the UN ochrc website. these cover the rights of, and abuses against, migrants, refugees and internally displaced people. They cover freedom of speech and movement, and persecution faced by human rights defenders and minorities. They cover access to water and food scarcity. There’s a press release condemning the situation in Iran of women being persecuted due to head covering mandates, and one condemning the situation in the u.s, where women have lost access to abortion and vital healthcare. These hundreds of statements apparently mean nothing.Of these 300, About 5 or so are about transgender people? She must be a lazy ass activist… and yet that’s now what she’s known for here and in google ai search too.

How are u gonna describe a woman who is described on the website for the European unions ‘European Institute for Gender Equality’ as “an independent consultant on gender issues, the rights of refugees and migrants, transitional justice and humanitarian response.” as an “anti trans activist”. And then make this entire article about that alone pretty much- Downplay all the real shit she’s done.like??? Ffs~2025-31977-50 (talk)08:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 6 citations in the lead supporting the characterization. Could you please address the sources?Elestrophe (talk)16:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think their concern is that there isn't balanced coverage regarding the other aspects of her career.Most of the article is about her anti-trans activism.Clovermoss🍀(talk)22:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does balanced coverage exist for other aspects of her career? If the media and academic coverage is only about one aspect, that's the part that's going to get top billing in an article, since that's what the subject is notable for.

Edit: It should be noted, concerning the OP's statement, that reports she's authored and "press releases" she's published do not count for said coverage. So whatever she's released about other subject matter is irrelevant if none of that has gotten secondary coverage.Silverseren^C22:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Sometimes that really is all someone is notable for, but I can understand why someone would want to bring attention to it in case it's not. Generally people don't want their biography to just be about their most controversial activities. The UN connection hints that there might be secondary coverage of other aspects of her career. The article is quite quote-heavy too, so certain statements should probably be paraphrased more. IP editor, do you have access to any secondary sources that you think the article should cite? As SilverSeren states, press releases are not generally considered areliable source.Clovermoss🍀(talk)22:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were some blatant BLPBALANCE issues in that there were no secondary RS sourcing to support many of the laundry list criticism of her views. I had removed several of them in July butUser:Amanda A. Brant would coatrack several more in.[10][11].Morbidthoughts (talk)05:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has since been restored by @Snokalok.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)05:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lovely, we have an entire thing going already! Alright, I'll just read through and get caught up.Snokalok (talk)05:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay yes so, as I mentioned, I think that if the info is reliably sourced (and granted, I'm not 100% on using unherd, I'd be fine with removing that again since I don't consider them reliable), then I don't think secondary sourcing is hugely required because the involvement of such prolific organizations is already DUE enough. Not everything DUE is going to be on the evening news, not everything DUE is going to have an NYT article about it. But if we're devoting articlespace to the fact that she carries UN credentials, particularly those relating to feminist topics, then we would be doing our readers a disservice by not mentioning her more partisan affiliations. Otherwise they might read "UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of women and girls" and take away a completely incongruent impression from "This is a person who campaigns with the ADF and has been condemned by a coalition of 230 women's orgs and the pre-Trump Department of State"

I have no thoughts at this time on how much space has or has not been devoted to her other advocacy.Snokalok (talk)06:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" fromWP:UNDUE don't you understand? Viewpoints need to be covered by reliable sources. There are already several criticism of Ansalem sourced to RS like the Guardian. You should not being weighing them based on how prominent you think the authoring organization is.Morbidthoughts (talk)07:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if Amnesty International puts out a statement on a geopolitical event, even if that doesn't get picked up by The Guardian, it's still worthy of inclusion on a page about that event. Do you not think a response from US Dept of State is not a significant viewpoint being prominently published?Snokalok (talk)08:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not when no reliable source gave a shit to write about it. There is further scrutiny in a BLP givenWP:PUBLICFIGURE andWP:BLPPRIMARY.Morbidthoughts (talk)09:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat - not everything that belongs in a wiki article is going to have a New York Times article about it. By your logic, we couldn't include, say, humanitarian statistics about Yazidis in 2024 because no major media outlet has talked about Yazidis in over a decade. Wikipedia is not merely a blow by blow replay of the latest news headlines. The State Department is reliable for what the State Department says, and what the State Department says bears worthy weight.Snokalok (talk)15:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? Why? Should include the views of the Russian, Indian, Chinese, Nigerian, Brazilian equivalents automatically too then? Note no one said the NYT but why is something with this alleged weight about someone so notably completely ignored by the probably hundreds if not thousands of reliable secondary sources? Also is there any real evidence that the views of the US State Department have gotten less noteworthy in the Trump era? From what I've seen, the evidence is they have gotten more noteworthy if anything given the level of coverage in reliable secondary sources.Nil Einne (talk)08:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that got my attention is that even sources in Israel that tend to defend Israel's actions and attack critics have not employed an 'anti-trans activist' label as a way to help discredit her complaints about Israel's military killing thousands of women and girls, and using terms like 'femi-genocide' etc. They took a different approach. Although perhaps characterizing her that way wouldn't be very effective in Israel, I don't know. I found it a bit surprising though, even fierce critics didn't use it.Sean.hoyland (talk)08:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you say that as though the word "antisemitism" hasn't become the shorthand that everyone even slightly pro-Israel uses now towards anyone against IsraelSnokalok (talk)21:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's unfortunate that many people who mysteriously claim to be 'pro-Israel' throw that word around like candy (in good and bad faith), devaluing it, and therefore making it more difficult to identify, label and deal with actual antisemitism (never in short supply and definitely a 'light sleeper'). But in this case, in the reports I've seen, they used a different approach, pointing at her lack of knowledge about rocket attacks on Israel from the various armed Palestinian groups.Sean.hoyland (talk)04:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is there any real evidence that the views of the US State Department have gotten less noteworthy in the Trump era They can be pretty easily argued as less reliable.

Why? Should include the views of the Russian, Indian, Chinese, Nigerian, Brazilian equivalents automatically too then? I'd say so. To cite my Yazidis example again, if all of these countries have different or conflicting data of the status of Yazidis in 2024, then yeah, why not include them?Snokalok (talk)21:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snokalok, Could you expand onthen I don't think secondary sourcing is hugely required. This article is at the interface of two contentious topics. Did I misunderstand you? Are you saying we don't need to write from secondary sources here?Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)09:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that on a niche and contemporary topic away from the public eye like this, a lot of our best and most reliable sources are going to be primary. NGO reports. Primary news coverage. Things like that, which on most other articles - even BLP ones - you see pass muster as reliable without issue - because it's not like anyone out there has written "The Rise and Fall of Reem Alsalem: A History of Reem Alsalem" that we can simply pull from.Snokalok (talk)21:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I don't agree though, and sloppy practices on other pages can never be an argument for ignoringWP:BLPPRIMARY. Encyclopaedic articles are written from secondary sources, and if we don't have secondary sources, we should not be synthesising articles from primary sources: a clear breach of ouroriginal research policy. We don't need a history of Reem Alsalem, but we do need the sources where someone else has written about her. A lot of pages do indeed just rely on primary news reporting, and a lot of articles are doing that wrong. But, of course, some newspaper and TV coverage will be secondary. Handling such sources carefully, and not compromising on the principle that we use the secondary sources, is what is called for.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)08:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I would say thatAlsalem has claimed gender-critical activists are subjected to "smear campaigns" and branded as "Nazis", "genocidaires" or "extremists" should be removed since it is sourced to her own statement.Alliance Defending Freedom doesn't seem to be a reliable source, even when attributed. No comment on the rest yet.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)06:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with removing the quote, as for the ADF, I'm wondering if this doesn't fall very simply under ABOUTSELFSnokalok (talk)06:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ABOUTSELF sources aren't DUE for obvious reasons; people say a lot of (great or otherwise) things about themselves all the time, doesn't mean our articles be filled with that. We have plenty of reliable sources talking about her espousing anti-trans views, using ABOUTSELF to coatrack more only serves to weaken that argument.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)06:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm alright, fair enough.Snokalok (talk)06:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I strongly agree with Snokalok here and don't appreciate you essentially removing one of the most significant sources of notability from her article. (I also don't like Children Will Listen removing a bunch of well sourced material from the lead, for that matter.) The BLP policy does not say we need to be more positive about BLPs, the BLP policy says we need to be more careful about writing about BLPs, positive or negative. That she is an anti-transgender activist is undeniable from the sourcing, there is voluminous sourcing about it, and so it needs to be mentioned prominently.

What I will say is that both the current and former versions of the article have a badWP:PROSELINE problem, and it's likely that trying to summarize the sources instead of just listing what she did and when she did it would go a long way towards making the article better.Loki (talk)00:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not removing anything. I'm shifting the weight of the article towards what RS actually say about her based on the original complainant. The lead sentence should reflect what RS actually describe her as. Her views about female safe spaces and transgender women are clear as day but to describe as a gender critical or anti-trans "activist" takes original research.Morbidthoughts (talk)23:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just thepreview ofthe book that contains the source that was sourcingthe claim you just removed contains the line:

With the rise of transphobic ideologies, such as the ‘gender critical’ movement, in international legal circles34 queer legal scholarship now finds itself in a battle with multiple fronts.

where that "34" is a footnote that explicitly mentions Reem Alsalem by name as an example.

Again, this isn't even the source itself, this is the introduction to the book that contains the source, and it already explicitly contains claims that you say are "original research". In fact, because it explicitly calls her "transphobic" it contains claims that arestronger than the claims you say are original research. I frankly don't believe you've even read the sources here.Loki (talk)01:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-*edit conflict*Loki, I'm really disappointed in your edit[12] to restore the activist labels in the lead when it's not directly supported by the cited sources that you used to support that as demanded byWP:BLPSTYLE. I have access to those articles/book chapters and can reproduce how they refer to her.

• Duffy (2024):Most recently, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, has espoused ‘gender-critical’ views in attempting to intervene in policy debates in the United Kingdom.
• Rodrigues (2025):Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, has consistently argued for further barriers and restrictions on legal gender recognition that undercut the rights of transgender individuals
• Paige & O'Hara (2024):I could not find that given quote in the citation in the cited chapter. What page number is it on? (Looking for the wrong quote that Thielen made) - The footnote does not directly spell out she is an anti-trans or gender critical activist. Footnote 34: ...and statements by the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem; See, Sandra Dufy, “‘Ideological Colonising’: The Infuence of Anti-Gender Movements on Domestic and International Human Rights Law” this volume. A footnote definitely does not justify putting that in the lead.

So yeah, I did read them and it's obvious you did not read the sources to justify the insertion.Morbidthoughts (talk)01:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You edit conflicted with me directly pointing out a time where the sources say something you say they never say.

Also: if the source says "some people are X" and lists specific people in a footnote, itis directly saying "these people are X" and you can't dismiss it by saying "it's just a footnote".Loki (talk)01:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edit conflicted when I was writing out the quotes before you even responded to me. Unfortunately for third quote, I was looking at the wrong citation "Theilan" which had an actual quote. Also I don't see any variant of "some people are X" in transphobic ideologies. You don't seem to understand the difference between ideologies aka views and people.Morbidthoughts (talk)01:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least agree it's calling Reem Alsalem a member of the gender-critical movement?Loki (talk)02:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The footnotes gives as examples of transphobic ideologies with the preface "statements by... Reem Alsalem". Statements not people. Any attempt to draw more from that is OR.Morbidthoughts (talk)02:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've simplified the lede, hopefully that solves the problem.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)22:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well idk what to say cos she’s referenced in a shit tonne of news articles as a human rights expert or just as a special reporter but they’re about the women in an -ongoing humanitarian crisis- which I’m apparently not allowed to talk about on this website so??..

but u can go through the google scholar website and there’s literally hundreds of research papers that talk about her or reference her as things like or “expert in (whatever)” or special reporter. So why do these 3 haters with their single paper take precedence over that?

But whatever here’s some news articles that don’t reference the -crisis I’m not allowed to talk about- that just call her a ‘special reporter’ or ‘un official’ or ‘expert’

https://kuwaittimes.com/article/32954/kuwait/other-news/un-special-rapporteur-calls-on-kuwait-to-form-womens-ministry/amp/https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41622124.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2023/10/15/violence-against-women-and-girls-is-one-of-the-most-widespread-persistent-and-devastating-human-rights-violations/

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/uae/uae-un-official-calls-for-more-support-to-help-expat-women-who-suffered-abuse?amp=1

And this one that calls her a consultant that specialises in humanitarian and refugee issues.

https://rli.sas.ac.uk/people/reem-alsalem

This one describes her as the first Arab woman to be special reporter

https://ardd-jo.org/blogs/ardd-hosts-the-unsr-on-violence-against-women-and-girls-reem-alsalems-visit-to-jordan/

In these ones she’s a human rights experthttps://africa.dailynewsegypt.com/un-experts-accuse-sudans-rsf-of-atrocities-in-el-fasher-as-displacement-surges/

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129242

And this one she’s an expert in violence against women

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice-points/is-it-time-for-a-gender-neutral-court/5120484.article

Genuinely can’t believe me pointing this out is getting pushback cos I thought this must just be an article no one looks at, but the fact that people are actively maintaining this position is fried.

Imagine if you spent your whole life working at dog shelters, investigating dog fighting rings, and campaigning against greyhound racing, but then you post some recipes online with beef mince in them and some gronks from PETA publish articles stating you’re a notorious animal abuse activist and Wikipedia just runs with it. Absolute madness~2025-32298-25 (talk)03:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But if this what u wanna tell the world then great job. I’m sure women experiencing femicide/genocide, and physical and sexual violence worldwide are thankful to u discrediting their reality. When I was telling someone about what women are experiencing in a certain country, I used the UN human rights council to counter their bullshit and was met with “yeh a anti gay activist is a great source”.

So thanks for that <3~2025-32298-25 (talk)04:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Maybe you should become an editor.Sean.hoyland (talk)04:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybs babes but I was thinking I should go uni and write research papers where I call my opps shit eater activists since apparently that’s all it takes. 1 paper for something to be uncritically parroted here and then repeated as fact in google ai. No matter what u have done that’s simply what u are now.

Actually this is honestly some bullshit. I googled it and legit no one calls her a “anti transgender activist” except for that… (which I can’t even read??). She’s not ever described as an activist of anything, not even against violence so wtf are u people even saying?

Stop discrediting her cos of this one issue ffs.~2025-32298-25 (talk)07:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sry that last part wasn’t directed to u just went on a tangent while typing~2025-32298-25 (talk)07:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like your reaction to what you see as a mismatch between what Wikipedia says based on sources editors have selected and sampled, and what it might say if all reliable sources that have discussed the subject were sampled and summarized according to our policies and guidelines. I think Wikipedia needs more editors that look at things this way, regardless of the particular issue in this case. So, if you need a break from the paper about your shit eating activist opponents, think about becoming an editor.Sean.hoyland (talk)08:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was the outcome of this thread? It is being cited as consensus to remove referenced contenthere but I don't see those specific matters being discussed on a quick skim of the, admittedly TL;DR, thread. Did I miss something or is this a red herring? --DanielRigal (talk)02:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I presume we may need an RfC to formally resolve this.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)02:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (and I also agree that this thread has not reached a consensus to remove anything).Loki (talk)05:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was some paring down of the laundry list down to meetWP:BLPBALANCE. Some of the cited sources are not as strong as others, and you shouldn't be re-adding them just because they are sourced nor reinstating without consensus. A lot of the criticism simply just echo each other.Morbidthoughts (talk)02:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But you said that you were removing that content per a consensus on this thread and I don't see that. Can you explain exactly where it was decided to remove that? To be fair, the thread is half full of angry and incoherent ranting by temp accounts so maybe I missed something? --DanielRigal (talk)02:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said I removed it perWP:BLPBALANCE which was raised here. Consensus is required to reinstate.Morbidthoughts (talk)02:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use an edit summary that says "This is a WP:BLPBALANCE issue that was discussed at WP:BLPN" then you had better be editing in line with a consensus on that thread and, unless I'm missing something, that does not seem to be the case. I'm trying to AGF here but it looks more like you are using this thread as an excuse to remove plausibly valid content. Returning to my original question, did this thread even result in any consensus at all? --DanielRigal (talk)02:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policies reflect site-wide consensus, and you had better be editing in line with them. You basically are arguing againstWP:BLPUNDEL with your reinstatements.Morbidthoughts (talk)02:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as WIKILAWYERING and avoiding the main question. Where on this thread is the consensus for your removal of that plausibly valid content? If it is not here then why did you even mention it? --DanielRigal (talk)02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidthoughts never said said there was consensus. They said that as good faith BLP objections have been raised, then consensus is required to restore which is both true, and something anyone who wants to edit BLPs should know. Beyond the TA, I would everyone here seems to be very experienced so definitely should know that and if they don't then perhaps it's time to consider a BLP topic ban.Nil Einne (talk)13:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an editor interested to translate the article Djan Khoe (English into Dutch)Khoe0005 (talk)17:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khoe0005 you might have better luck onWikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands orWikipedia:WikiProject Languages. I thought we had a translation request board, but I cant find it. ←Metallurgist (talk)04:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or make a stub for it on the Dutch wiki and hopefully someone takes it up. Looks like nl-wiki doesnt have an expand language template. ←Metallurgist (talk)04:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metallurgist, thanks for your comment. In the meantime, a Dutch editor has launched a Dutch version in his own style, not just a translation. So it is done. Best regards, Djan KhoeKhoe0005 (talk)13:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll observe: 1) the article has aWP:COI template that looks well deserved; 2) the very short edit history appears to include 3WP:SPA, of which OP is one; and 3) OP has garnered relevantWP:COI and other warnings on usertalk.JFHJr (㊟)03:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi metallurgist, thanks for your comment. About the English version, I revealed my identity last April and also declared not to edit the article anymore. According to Timtrent the COI discussion is closed. In the meantime I did an edit on an article about Philips Research. As for the Dutch version of the article, you can see that I was not editing.Khoe0005 (talk)08:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that a number of experienced editors have been editing the article since April. The article seems to mature nicely. Maybe it is time to remove the COI tag ?Khoe0005 (talk)09:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed this. The article was nominated by Timtrent for a deletion. Immediately 3 other editors signals a fast keep.

Later Timtrent confirmed that the COI discussion is closed. He also advised me about posting a photo.Khoe0005 (talk)17:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: does BLP policy apply to everything in a BLP, or is there an exception when talking about a work the LP created without directly talking about the LP?

Article:Massimo Introvigne

Edits:[13][14][15]

Discussion:[16]

Related:Tony Ortega

--Guy Macon (talk)05:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Involved kinda, but to extend what I was saying, it is to my understanding that BLPSPS covers all material on the articles of BLPS.PARAKANYAA (talk)05:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content not directly related to the topic of an article is aWP: OR problem, and articles about living people are supposed to follow OR strictly. Sometimes if the work the LP created doesn't have its own article, we'll include sections about that work in the LP's biography, but in this case the work does have its own article. --Kyohyi (talk)17:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not OR. It is cited to a self-published blog byTony Ortega who is a recognized subject-matter expert on the subject of Scientology.

Also, not "content not directly related to the topic of an article". The claim in question is the second half of"CESNUR published the Encyclopedia of Religion in Italy in 2001, of which Introvigne was the main author. Journalist and Scientology-critic Tony Ortega penned a series of 2018/19 articles criticizing The Journal of CESNUR as an unreliable 'apologist journal'."

This would be allowed anywhere else on Wikipedia with zero concerns about it being unrelated or original research. The only question is the one I asked:"Does BLP policy apply to everything in a BLP, or is there an exception when talking about a work the LP created without directly talking about the LP?" So far the only people who have even tried to answer that question are the ones who have been editing the page. No actual dispute between PARAKANYAA and me. We are both working on getting an answer. If nobody from this noticeboard chooses to weigh in on the question asked, I may have to post an RfC to settle the question. --Guy Macon (talk)18:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase the issue for you. BLP directs us to strictly enforce our core content policies on articles about LP. OR directs us that if content is not directly related to an article, then it is original research to include it on that article. A strict interpretation of that statement would mean that content not about the LP would violate the stricter BLP interpretation of OR, so if it's not really about the LP then it's an OR problem. Conversely if it is really about the LP then it is a BLP problem. --Kyohyi (talk)18:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand what you are saying. That's a reasonable argument. --Guy Macon (talk)19:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, L Ron Hubbard did claim to be "Provost Marshal of Korea" in 1945. After a local Australian newspaper reported that the New South Wales police were investigating Scientology, Hubbard sent an indignant letter to the state police. "My personal feeling is that you have a subversive infiltration in your area," he wrote. "As one trained as the Provost Marshal of Korea, I have a good grip on Asian subversion and do not intend it to ruin Scientology in any area." Yes The Journal of CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions) did claim that Hubbard never wrote that. Yes Massimo Introvigne is the group director of CESNUR. And yes, a recognized subject-matter expert on the subject of Scientology looked at the above facts and correctly concluded that The Journal of CESNUR is an apologetics journal. --Guy Macon (talk)18:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this does in general fall under BLP... I would attribute Ortega and use him sparingly.Horse Eye's Back (talk)18:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So Ortega not allowed in the Massimo Introvigne article (per Kyohyi) or allowed sparingly with attribution (per Horse Eye's Back)? I am fine either way; I just want to know how to apply policy. --Guy Macon (talk)19:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a similar question at WT:BLP not that long ago, and the consensus was that WP:BLP applies to all content in a biographical article about an LP / that any content in a biographical article is implicitly about the LP. SeeWikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 64 § Does WP:BLP apply to all content in a biographical article about a living person, or might there be some content that is not about that living person. Perhaps it would be good to have a clarifying phrase about this inWP:BLP, given that it's not the first time it's come up.FactOrOpinion (talk)00:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP cannot be cited to protect an author from expert criticism of their scholarship -- imagine if it could! Ortega is a RS to his own opinions.Feoffer (talk)09:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Feoffer on this and in my opinion Ortega should stay in the article. The only reason I removed it is that we have an unresolved debate about whether it is a violation ofWP:BLP and the rules are clear that it must stay out until that disagreement is resolved. --Guy Macon (talk)10:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes it can. Being an expert does not make it not an SPS.WP:BLPSPS says that even expert sources cannot be used. It is not ambiguous "Never 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.", even if written by an expert.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting tripped up on the phrasing. To pick a more anodyne example: We can cite a film review by Roger Ebert when he says "I hated this director's film!" -- that is NOT a BLP violation against the director.Ebert's review tells us aboutEbert and his views -- it's source of material about a person written by the person themselves.Feoffer (talk)10:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert's reviews were not self-published and so don't resolve anything. Had his review been self-published, it would not satisfy all 5 requirements for BLPSELFPUB, and you're misinterpreting that policy to suggest that such a statement is only about the speaker and not also about the object. Whether it's nonetheless acceptable because it's about the film and not the director is what's disputed. I agree with Guy Macon's 14:14, 14 November comment (here), and rather than continue to debate it, I think it makes more sense to come up with good wording for an RfC.FactOrOpinion (talk)18:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On an article about the person it is quite obviously being used asmaterial about the person.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that every single part of an article about a person is being used as material about that person may seem obvious to you. but it does not seem obvious to me. I picked a BLP that has had a lot of eyes on it and is fairly lengthy --Joe Biden -- and looked for claims in the article that were not about Joe Biden. Here are a couple:

• "In February 2022, the Russian Armed Forces under President Vladimir Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine."
• "In October 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel."

Neither of those are in any way material about Joe Biden. Both are followed by material about Joe Biden (how he reacted) but are not themselves statements about Joe Biden. Thus the assertion that every single thing in an article about a person is about that person appears to be refuted through counterexample. Sometimes, as happened here, we add material that is not about the person to give context to the following material about the person. And the question that is unresolved is whether the words "In October 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel" are subject to the prohibition about citations to self published sources by subject-matter experts. Wikipedia policy is not clear on that question. --Guy Macon (talk)20:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that your counterexamples with Joe Biden's article are not about Biden, neither is sourced to an EXPERTSPS. I think the argument there is that if the only sources that discuss the context are EXPERTSPS, then the content for which that is context doesn't belong in the article. For me, your counterexamples mainly point out that neither of the two wordings for an RfC that I'd proposed below get at the real issue. I'll see whether I can come up with a better wording.FactOrOpinion (talk)22:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of BLP those are "about" him, yes. As they are not cited to SPS so there is no issue.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be saying that as long as you can find a workaround for a particular example, there is no need to clarify an ambiguity in our policies that has come up twice and which multiple editors have come to different conclusions about. The very first page I checked (admittedly, chosen because it is lengthy) had multiple examples of statements that most people would agree are not about the person. I am not going to spend hours going through BLPs looking for an example that is not about the person and also sourced to a self-published source from an established subject-matter expert, especially with you still insisting that "In October 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel" is somehow a statement about Joe Biden. I am going to disengage from this conversation now and stop responding. Clearly we will never agree. Feel free to have the last word. --Guy Macon (talk)02:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've always taken the BLP restriction on self published sources to be a restriction on claims about the subject and would apply in all articles. So a SPS that says the Piper Cub was the first plane to use the Continental A-40 engine could be used in a BLP since it's not a fact about the article subject. It might be an issue if the article subject were arguing that the first engine was a Franklin and we were using the SPS to show the BLP subject was wrong. That is perhaps a gray area (all of this hypothetical presumes WEIGHT for inclusion). It would be fine on the talk page to cite the SPS to justify excluding the BLP's claims. It's probably not OK to place the SPS next two the BLP's claim in the article in a way that suggests this is a disputed claim. Where we can't use a SPS is to say in the article that the BLP subject's engine claim is wrong (SYNTH of sources). Nor could we used a specific statement from the SPS (SPS says: "Mr BLP has made claims that show he is ignorant when it comes to the Piper Cub") to make claims anywhere on Wikipedia. My feeling is this all stems from the idea that we are supposed to be extra cautions about casting aspersions on BLP article subjects. Thus, things that put a BLP in a bad light must be well sourced.Springee (talk)15:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say that sentence makes no sense in that place in the article after reading it. We have a sentence he was an author on a book published by a publisher, followed by... someone critiquing a journal published by that same publisher? How is that relevant to the article? I'm guessing it's meant to be guilt by association, and if that is the reason for including it, I'd remove the statement. Otherwise, it needs rewriting so a reader understands it's inclusion.Denaar (talk)15:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good feedback -- I updated the article to reflect that the subject is Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Turns out we never actually said that.Feoffer (talk)03:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it is heading for an RfC. I don't see any other way to arrive at a consensus. If so, could weplease discuss the wording here before posting it? All too often we get a misleading or biased question or a limited choice of answers to !vote on, based upon the person posting the RfC having a strong opinion as to what the result should be. --Guy Macon (talk)10:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will need to come to a RFC, since we can now source Ortega's opinion to its coverage in the journalImplicit Religion. Ithink we have agreement to include it via that source.Feoffer (talk)11:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This ambiguity in Wikipedia's BPL policy has come up twice now. Fixing the issue on one particular page by finding a better source does nothing to address the fact that several well-meaning and experienced editors disagree about how to apply the policy. That problem will not go away, and a clarification that everyone can understand and follow is needed, even if we are able to kick the can down the road on this one article. --Guy Macon (talk)14:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a start on workshopping an RfC question:

Does WP:BLP apply to all material in a biographical article?
Option 1: Yes, all content in a BLP article is about the living person.
Option 2: No, the policy applies to material about the person themself but does not apply, e.g., to a review of a book that the person wrote.
Note that the practical difference between Option 1 and 2 is whether EXPERTSPS can ever be used for content that appears in a biographical article (e.g., whether an EXPERTSPS book review is allowed). Also note that non-biographical articles may have content about a living person, so outside of biographical articles, we regularly have to assess whether content is/isn't about a living person.

That second note might be better omitted.FactOrOpinion (talk)15:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good start, but even I would have to !vote yes on the question "Does BLP apply to everything?". A better question might be based onWP:FRINGE#PARITY:May self-published expertopinions be included in biographies of fringe theory proponents? (reminder that I'm not talking about Introvigne anymore).Feoffer (talk)15:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, "Does WP:BLP apply to all material in a biographical article?" is poorly worded. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is something like

Is all content in a biographical article about a living person necessarily about the LP, or is it possible that some content in a BLP article is not about the person themself?
Option 1: All content in a BLP article is about the living person themself, otherwise it should not be in the article.
Option 2: It is possible that some content in a BLP article is not about the person themself, e.g., a review of a book that the person wrote.
Note that the practical difference between Option 1 and 2 is whether EXPERTSPS can ever be used for content that appears in a biographical article (e.g., whether an EXPERTSPS book review is allowed).

I think that any question about this is going to have to be able to articulate a distinction between living persons and something that isn't itself a living person but is strongly linked to a living person (e.g., a book written by that person). It might also be appropriate to note that even in an article that is largely BLP content, there can be content that isn't even strongly linked to the person (e.g., in the Background section ofDeportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, there's a subsection on the general legal construct of Due process, and although that subsection is there because there's a due process element to KAG's legal case, the discussion in the background section is much more general). I don't know whether it makes sense to say more about the book example (e.g., is it BLP content in the article about the author but not necessarily BLP content in the article about the book?).FactOrOpinion (talk)16:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you going for -- something wider in scope than just the Fringe Theory issue. But instead of phrasing in terms of an undefined construct ("necessarily about the LP") but actually about the practical question itself?Feoffer (talk)16:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment "But instead of phrasing in terms of an undefined construct ("necessarily about the LP") but actually about the practical question itself?" It seems to be missing one or more words. Regardless, what would be most productive is for you to present RfC wording that you think would be clearer/better.FactOrOpinion (talk)18:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As written I would say the intent is obviously Option 1 but BLPSPS is, like BLPPRIMARY, often ignored.PARAKANYAA (talk)00:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the counterexample in the above section containing material on the Joe Biden page that is not about Joe Biden. --Guy Macon (talk)20:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a counterexample. It's on his page, so it's about him. Anything in an article titled Joe Biden is about Joe Biden.PARAKANYAA (talk)05:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that if something is a BLPvio, it doesn't matter whether it's actually on a biography article or not. If it were a BLPvio, we couldn't say it ANYWHERE on the project.Feoffer (talk)06:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, but things like "In February 2022, the Russian Armed Forces under President Vladimir Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine" are not BLPvios, and are allowed anywhere else on Wikipedia. That one, of course, has a zillion sources, but imagine an equally non-violating claim referenced only to a subject-matter-expert's blog. It would be allowed anywhere else, but is it allowed on a BLP page? You can argue that both ways.

One problem is that we have a vocal minority that keeps repeating the claim over and over that Putin invading Ukraine is about Biden because it is written on the Biden page. That's calledbegging the question or assuming the conclusion. It is assuming that everything on the Biden page is about Biden (and that nobody on Wikipedia has ever written any background info in any BLP) because reasons, and then using that as an argument that everything on the Biden page is about Biden. --Guy Macon (talk)09:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third attempt to come up with potential RfC wording in light of Guy Macon's counterexamples:

The primary difference between the use of EXPERTSPS in BLP articles and non-BLP articles is the constraint on not using EXPERTSPS as third-party sources for content about living persons:

• WP:BLPSPS: "Never useself-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 publishedby the person themselves."
• WP:SPS andWP:RS/SPS: "Never use self-published sources asthird-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

BLP articles sometimes contain material that is not about the living person themself, as with context for content thatis about the living person themself. For example, the article on Joe Biden includes the sentence "In February 2022, the Russian Armed Forces under President Vladimir Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine" as background for Biden's response. In this example, the content is sourced to non-self-published sources.

Question: Must all content in a BLP article either be written by the person themself or published in a non-SPS?

• Option 1: Yes. If an EXPERTSPS is the only source for content, it must be omitted, regardless of the nature of that content.
• Option 2: No. On occasion, some content in a BLP article is not about the person themself and can have been published in an EXPERTSPS. (examples welcome)

FactOrOpinion (talk)23:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. --Guy Macon (talk)01:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I realized: many editors object to RfCs that are not written in an actionable way. As written, the above doesn't propose any clarifying language for WP:BLP. I'm not going to work on clarifying language. Up to you whether to add proposed language that would be added to WP:BLP and to open the RfC if you want. (I'm not going to open an RfC about this. I was only trying to help workshop language for it.)FactOrOpinion (talk)14:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I'm not sure an RFC would be helpful until we actually have an article that requires an ExpertSPS that's not also published in a RS.Feoffer (talk)15:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An EXPERTSPSis an RS.FactOrOpinion (talk)15:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the worst Wikipedia entry I have seen in a very long time. It is not biography; it is hagiography, and the subject is very far from a saint. Whoever wrote it has no shame.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2025-33405-99 (talk)13:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I've tried to de-puff one small section, and have removed text like "Impressed by his success ... high-profile ... Although many details of these deals remain proprietary, media reports indicate that his efforts contributed to expanding ... Leveraging his experience in league administration ... raising the brand's profile during a high-visibility sports moment ... highlighting his influence in athlete marketing and brand development". It needs someone who knows more about the context - sports and marketing? - than I do to have a proper go at getting it to NPOV. I see you have commented on the article's Talk page too. I will tag the article with "advert".Tacyarg (talk)14:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like undisclosed paid editing; asked about this on the talk page of the most recent major contributor:User_talk:James.DC#Question_about_conflict_of_interest. I'm wondering if it makes the most sense to revert the article back tothe version before that round of editing and rebuild from there, instead of trying to clean it up from the current state.Dreamyshade (talk)00:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look atthis request? Beyond playing it safe and removing the text as requested, I'm sure there's more to be done but I'm not sure what or how to make it happen.Largoplazo (talk)00:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple French news articles have covered this from March to June, including that there was an ongoing investigation, which would seem to satisfyWP:PUBLICFIGURE.[19][20][21][22]Morbidthoughts (talk)05:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Morbidthoughts: Ewing is a public figure and the allegations have received significant coverage in at least six reliable, mainstream French venues. To La Parisien, Le Figaro, BFM TV, and 20 Minutes, I can add Elle[23] and La Provence.[24]

I propose the section heading "Legal issues" and the text: "In March 2025,La Parisien reported that Ewing had been accused of sexual offences dating from 2009 by multiple young men who had sought to work with him. A preliminary police investigation in Meaux was open as of June 2025. Ewing denies the allegations.", citing the sources presented here.Fences&Windows21:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggestion. Since the other editor hasn't contributed to this discussion, I'm going to suggest that he do so and wait a bit to see whether he does before I go ahead and add this text.Largoplazo (talk)15:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across an 'inmate locator' provided by the Bureau of Prisons being used for a BLP and removed it. Upon searching for this specific url it is used over 421 times[25]

Some will be for deceased peoples but many are for living people. Help in cleaning this up would be appreciated.Traumnovelle (talk)06:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is almost definitely not RS anyway. ←Metallurgist (talk)04:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it be reliable? It's a US Federal govt database dating back to 1982.https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/about_records.jspFences&Windows15:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's assuredly reliable for who is in prison and where. But BLPPRIMARY makes it an issue for those living.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its reliable for confirming that a person meeting the details provided are in prison or not but an issue (which relates to why its forbidden by BLPPRIMARY) is that people can share names and similar details or there can be an error in data entry.

I personally don't think that such documents should be used in general as they are primary sources, prone to misuse, and if you can only source something to them it certainly isn't due/important. But I understand this isn't policy/consensus unlike BLPPRIMARY.Traumnovelle (talk)19:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there can be an error in any source, obviously, or you can conflate it just the same. But provided the person is dead it isn't any more dangerous than any other primary source, but it must be used in accordance withWP:PRIMARY.PARAKANYAA (talk)06:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should most definitely should be removed from any articles about BLPs.TarnishedPath^talk08:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need a RS documenting the imprisonment, but it's fine forwhich prison.Feoffer (talk)15:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, if no RS reports on the specific prison I don't see how it is due. In addition as a database search its prone to the error of people having similar names.Traumnovelle (talk)20:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The biography of very recently dead personArthur S. Reber is very extensively written from sources authored or co-authored by the article subject himself. Is this reasonable?Graywalls (talk)14:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ideal, but it seems conservatively written rather than being self-serving. I suggest incremental improvements by finding more secondary sources rather than gutting it.Fences&Windows15:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[[26]]

defamatory libelous edit

diff linken.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miles_Taylor_%28security_expert%29&diff=prev&oldid=1322371447— Precedingunsigned comment added byKatlizjen (talk •contribs)04:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edits have been reverted. I don't think they constitute defamation in the sense of harming Taylor's reputation and I don't believe it warrants revision deletion.Traumnovelle (talk)05:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY states 'Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses'. Now whilst we cannot use an indictment as a reference, would it be acceptable as being included in a footnote or in an external link section? My reading ofWP:ELBLP that we must notlink to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP means we should be providing these as external links/supplementary footnotes in an article, but others have suggested otherwise.Traumnovelle (talk)05:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable sources discuss an indictment (and subsequent conviction) Does ELBLP forbid linking to that document -- being hosted by either a news organization or the court?Feoffer (talk)05:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• My view has always been if something contained in these documents are discussed in the article based on reliable secondary sources it's fine to add them as additional references provided there's nothing in our article exclusively from them. But they shouldn't be added as external links.Nil Einne (talk)06:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• In articles that address court cases, we have external links to court documents/dockets in a lot of court case infoboxes and/or the external links sections. If that's not allowed when the case involves a living person, we have considerable pruning to do. I remove them when I see them as a reference, even if it's only as an additional reference. I also remove image files when someone adds a pdf of an indictment to the body of an article, but that's often contested (for an example where one remains, seeFederal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case) § Original indictment and arraignment). And I haven't removed the copies of theMueller special counsel investigation report from the body, even though it's a legal doc addressing many living persons, so I guess my own approach isn't entirely consistent. Certainly the approach across editors isn't consistent, and it would probably be good for there to be a bit more explicit guidance re: the external links.FactOrOpinion (talk)15:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• We aren't using them to "support assertions" so as an EL, provided they are official, I don't see an issue.PARAKANYAA (talk)17:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree withPARAKANYAA. If they're not used to support any content in wikivoice, and if they appear solely as ELs or "Further reading", the threshold is generally mere relevance, something likeWP:WEIGHT plusWP:NPOV. I'd add that it's not aWP:FRINGE dump or safe harbor forWP:BLP-problematic ELs. It's easy to be undue and get removed as such. EL and FR sections are not meant to replicate hits from a google search. But they might be the best place for many reliableWP:PRIMARY that can't or won't be used to support article prose. Especially when they might underpin the secondary reporting that's actually used as sources.JFHJr (㊟)21:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand and agree with your objections: Court documents may have a lot of private information that is an invasion of privacy for us to post on Wikipedia, but sometimes they are very useful for readers who want to go direct to the source and read on a topic in depth. So I'd add caveats: How public is the person/people involved? Is it totally a personal matter (divorce) or something that really involves the public? Importantly: Is the document hosted on an official site, or did someone get a copy and post it on a file sharing site somewhere? I can sometimes easily find legal documents that someone uploaded to some kind of file sharing/hosting, but we probably shouldn't link to those. I'm actually ok with using original research, on the talk page, to confirm the reliability of secondary sources, especially when we can readily confirm which sources are correct (this approach is more for news stories, not say, interpretations of history). So while it's not a "never link to such documents", I do think there are plenty of arguments for removing them on a case by case basis. Even for a celebrity, I don't really think their divorce papers should be on Wikipedia. But I'd be willing to link to a Supreme Court case in a heartbeat.Denaar (talk)14:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sabu (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

I've been using my alt account to review some BLP issues that have been raised on talk pages without action, which is how I came across this article. Reviewing the article history shows a DOB of January 2, 1951, being repeatedly changed to January 2, 1960 by COI editorHabs25thcup. Neither date was sourced, and a third date, January 2 1957, appeared in the article when it was created. In May 2023,an IP noted a New York Times birth announcement on the talk page which is dated January 2, 1951 and states that Paul Sabu "was born today to Marilyn Cooper...and Sabu Dastagir". As such, I added the date and reliable source to the article to replace the unsourced 1960 date. Habs25thcup reverted the change with a citation to IMDb. I explained in my edit summary and on their talk page that IMDb cannot be used as a source and restored the New York Times DOB.

To their credit, instead of reverting, Habs25thcup made a COI edit request on the talk page requesting the DOB be changed to 1960 pointing to IMDb as their source with an offer to provide tax documents (which would failWP:BLPPRIMARY). The request did not provide any reliable sourcing for the claim nor did it address the NYT 1951 birth announcement.Likeanechointheforest reviewed the request and advised Habs25thcup to "go ahead and make the proposed change" despite 1) no reliable source being provided and 2) no explanation for the birth announcement published in 1951. If there are multiple dates supported by reliable sources thenWP:DOBCONFLICT applies, but I'm not sure how to proceed with that as no reliable source has been provided for the 1960 date.--AlsoPonyo (talk)16:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was my mistake overlooking policy, admittedly I'm less familiar with resolving issues of multiple contradictory dates on BLP pages. I'm very much in agreement with @AlsoPonyo's suggestion on the page itself, that "1) Habs25thcup [should] provide a reliable source for the 1960 date and 2) account for the discrepancy in the reported dates"'Likeanechointheforest (talk)17:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest perhaps undoing your approval of the change then and leaving the request open until it can be reviewed further?--AlsoPonyo (talk)17:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT piece proves only that "Marilyn Cooper...and Sabu Dastagir" had a son called Paul in 1951; I would not instantly use it as evidence that the Paul Sabuwe have an article about was born in 1951. 1980s newspapers do place his birthday in the mid to early 1950s[27][28], and some of the stories I found seem like they would be most unusual if the 1960 birthday were to be believed... but OBNB gives 1960[29]They had two children, Jasmine (b. 1957) and Paul (b. 1960) - so there's clearly something going on here. Anyways, do we have enough sources connnecting Paul Dabu the muscician to any birthdate to satisfyWP:DOB? Does anybody feel like reporting a potential error to the ODNB and see if they'll do our work for us? Agree that IMBD is not a good source - just to let you know, Likeanechointheforest , they scrape from us enough that it's impeachable on bothWP:UGC andWP:CIRCULAR grounds.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸09:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian Thanks, just emailed the ODNB with links to the 1951 newspaper reports. I saw that theMotown Encyclopedia (2014) says 2 January 1960, but then I noticed it's a self-published book. There are apparently166 articles that cite that book, but that's a different problem.Dreamyshade (talk)17:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See

• 2025 United States military strikes on alleged drug traffickers#Casualties and survivors: fourteen individuals have been publicly named -- some speculative as to whether they were killed on a struck vessel, and two survivors repatriated to their home countries.
• Talk:2025 United States military strikes on alleged drug traffickers#Removal of names of victims

Should Wikipedia name the victims who weren't charged with any crime in their home countries and aren't notable for any other reason?

Should it name the potentially deceased (largely speculation)?SandyGeorgia (Talk)10:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't public figures so I don't see how we could name them in this context. No matter whether one wants to frame them as victims of extrajudicial violence, alleged criminals, or both BLP appears to be clear that we don't name them.Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article:David Holcman

Talk request:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Holcman#Edit_request_from_the_article_subject_(BLP_sourcing_and_undue_weight)

Summary: The article’s “Disciplinary action” relies on a primary institutional bulletin (CNRS BO) for contentious material about a living person. Per WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIMARY, such material should not rest on primary documentation without significant, independent, high-quality secondary coverage. The current prominence also appears UNDUE relative to the overall biography.

Request: Remove the primary-linked section; or, if editors can supply reliable independent coverage, trim to a single neutral sentence outside the lead with only secondary citations and no BO external link.

Recent editors pinged on Talk:Eva UX,Bm8kfc,Alexanderino.Outside input appreciated. —DHolcman-requests (talk)15:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup I'd call the CRNR document a primary source too. It is reporting nothing but its own decision. And I'd agree that without coverage in secondary sources, the 'Disciplinary action' section in the article shouldn't be in there in the first place. Which isn't to say that it wouldn't be merited if such coverage exists. If it does, that is what we should be basing content on. Just how much coverage would depend on what the sources have to say.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @AndyTheGrump — appreciated.

Given that the CNRS BO is being treated as a primary source here, and absent independent, reliable secondary coverage, could an uninvolved editor please:

• Remove the “Disciplinary action” section and the direct BO external link per BLPPRIMARY/UNDUE/EL; or

• If independent secondary coverage is produced, replace with a single neutral sentence placed low in the article (not in the lead), citing only that independent source (no BO link).

Happy to leave exact implementation to any uninvolved editor. Thanks all.DHolcman-requests (talk)15:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an uninvolved editor is available, it would be great to implement the trim/removal as outlined above?

• Remove the “Disciplinary action” section and the direct BO external link per BLPPRIMARY/UNDUE/EL; or

• If independent secondary coverage is produced, replace with a single neutral sentence low in the article (not in the lead), citing only that independent source (no BO link).

Thanks you for your help.DHolcman-requests (talk)15:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Disciplinary action" section has now been removed by an editor.

The content of the sentence is a neutral summary of the cited CNRS document and does not add interpretation beyond what the source states.

The report in question has been published by a public and reputable institution, and no specific policy-based reason has been provided to consider it as an unreliable source under WP:RS. On this topic, it should be noted also that the concern about the source’s reliability has been raised by the article’s subject.Bm8kfc (talk)14:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP/WP:BLPPRIMARY andWP:DUE/WP:BESTSOURCES are the policies. I've removed the information entirely because there is no secondary coverage. PerWP:BLP,Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects... Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone... Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Donot use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)15:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this "material" again and left a note on the talk page. There needs to be consensus for inclusion of this "material", otherwise it should stay out. Thank you --Malerooster (talk)15:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,I have reviewed the article in detail and would like to raise several concerns regarding promotional/self-published language, unverifiable claims, and content that does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for biographies of living persons. The following feedback is intended to be neutral and actionable.Overarching IssueThe article contains significant marketing claims that appear intended for self-promotion. These claims violate Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability (WP:V), neutrality (WP:NPOV), and biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). Many statements emphasize routine services, credentials, or self-described expertise without independent, reliable sources.1. Credential / Organizational Claims• Statement: “Certified Master Trainer of Hypnosis and NLP through the Canadian Institute of Ethical Hypnosis”• Issue: There is no independent verification that the Canadian Institute of Ethical Hypnosis exists as a registered, accredited organization in Canada. All sources appear to be self-published (LinkedIn, personal/practitioner websites).• Recommendation: • Reword to “Alexander has described himself as a Certified Master Trainer through the self-named ‘Canadian Institute of Ethical Hypnosis’” and tag with^{[citation needed]}• Or remove the claim entirely until an independent source can verify it.2. Marketing / Promotional Language• Statements such as: • “Provides confidential services for clients”• “Helps clients overcome personal challenges”• Generic statements about client success or training techniques• Issue: Routine services offered by mental health professionals are not encyclopedic; this language reads like marketing copy.• Recommendation: Remove or reword to neutral, verifiable statements. For example, focus on independently reported media appearances or publications.3. Unverified Ongoing Consulting• Statement: “Continues to provide consulting services”• Issue: There is no independent evidence (active website, booking page, business listing) verifying ongoing consulting activity.• Recommendation: Remove or tag with^{[citation needed]} until a verifiable source exists.4. Tours / Workshops / Shows• Statements implying ongoing or large-scale tours (national/international) are not supported by independent sources.• Evidence exists only for specific workshops or media appearances in Beijing.• Recommendation: Reword to a neutral phrasing: “Alexander has conducted workshops and appeared at events in Beijing, as reported by [reliable source].”• Remove or tag claims implying large-scale or international tours until independent verification is available.5. Media Appearances• Verified appearances: He appeared on [TV show] and was featured in [magazine].• Note: Personal experience cannot be cited; Wikipedia requires independent sources.• Recommendation: Retain only if cited to the network, magazine archive, or other reliable publication.6. Self-Described Expertise / Awards / Titles• Statements like “recognized expert,” “renowned trainer,” or “master of NLP” are promotional unless independently verified.• Recommendation: Remove or qualify with citations to independent sources.Actionable Summary for Editors• Remove or reword all promotional statements (routine services, client success, self-described expertise).• Tag or remove unsourced claims (ongoing consulting, touring, credentials from the Canadian Institute).• Replace self-published references (LinkedIn, personal site) with reliable independent sources where available (media coverage, publisher pages).• Retain verified content only (books, media appearances with independent sources).Relevant Wikipedia Policies• WP:BLP – Biographies of Living Persons• WP:V – Verifiability• WP:PROMO – Promotional Material• WP:NOTDIRECTORY – Not a Directory• WP:UNDUE – Undue Weight— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2025-34382-35 (talk)15:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Glenn Charles Andrew Alexander (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

Yes, it needs a complete rewrite from independent, reliable sources. If none can be found that meetWP:BIO, then stub or delete it. --Hipal (talk)17:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered this one aWP:PROD after removing several trash refs.JFHJr (㊟)04:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mehrshad Soheili (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

Speedy deletion as an attack page was declined. Article was translated from Persian Wikipedia without regard to our policies and guidelines. Just delete it? --Hipal (talk)16:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy was declined by@331dot: with the comment "the provided sources seem accurately summarized. Take to AfD if desired".Nthep (talk)21:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There may be reasons to delete the article (WP:BLP1E, possibly) but it's not an attack page. It describes someone being convicted of a crime, and that's what the sources say.331dot (talk)22:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, which is why I immediately took it here. --Hipal (talk)01:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing isn't really adequate though. You need to provide policy-based arguments.AndyTheGrump (talk)02:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's written now, I'd suggest it should be nominated for deletion, it seems to fall underWP:BIO1E andWP:BLP1E as said above.Denaar (talk)02:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered this a PROD. If it fails, someone else can offer it an AFD.JFHJr (㊟)03:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Zhou repeatedly changes birth date on her own profile to a younger age and removes sources that verify real birth year as 1978. Multiple cites on Wikipedia page list birth date as 1978, including NY Times and artists own management company.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLiamgideon (talk •contribs)23:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. It looks like unsupportedWP:DOB changes were made by IP editors. I'll request temporary protection atWP:RPP.JFHJr (㊟)23:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RPP already had a request. By an IP. It was declined, but I've asked for reconsideration.JFHJr (㊟)23:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's temporarily protected from the IPs (expires 00:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)). Please carry on this discussion at thearticle's talkpage, and watch for a while. Thank you again,Dennis Brown! Cheers.JFHJr (㊟)01:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced addition of family information contrary toWP:BLPNAME toAlexey Chepa byTheplayboiyoung (talk ·contribs) andAlex chepa (talk ·contribs); latter user possiblyimpersonation?Tacyarg (talk)14:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit in question:[30]. Reverted on the basis that the source (The Guardian, a news story) is a"primary source". I've seen this idea a few times. It is completely out of line with whatWP:PRIMARY says: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." That description has nothing to do with aGuardian news article on this topic; the writer/reporter is of course not an "insider" at all. It isn't an argument to take seriously -- sources of exactly this type are widely used on Wikipedia. I don't think it'smeant to be taken seriously; arguments of this sort are only ever produced in connection with material that editors like DeFacto simply don't like. Not sure what to do about it yet, but the answer is surely not "nothing".Nomoskedasticity (talk)19:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No,the source is a text-book example of a primary source in terms of the content in it used to support the addition to the article. WP:PRIMARY says, primary sources "offer an insider's view of an event". The Guardian article contained exactly that, and the added content relied on verbatim quotes of what the 'insider' said.

Per my edit summary, Iremoved that content because it was "undue with no supporting secondary sources and a non-neutral interpretation which omits context". Some might think, BLP-wise, that the non-neutral interpretation and omission of context were bad enough, even if the source was considered to be secondary.

(PS, why didn't you notify me of this discussion of my edit?) --DeFacto (talk).20:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt what primary means. Guardian by definition is a secondary source.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)15:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the classification of source, it is astounding that we would have hearsay of a serious accusation on a BLP.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸21:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How meta. If a secondary source becomes tantamount to primary for interviewing actual primary sources, and choosing what to publish, then what do you think is expected of secondary sources to be secondary? Blind journalism without any insight? If there areWP:POV or reliability issues about journalistic standards, perhapsWP:RSN is a better forum.JFHJr (㊟)22:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For perspective, one might invokeWP:BLPSPS when secondary (usually not remarkably reliable or even well-known) sources regurgitate interviews without any apparent editorial oversight. I'm not sure that's what The Guardian did here.JFHJr (㊟)23:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a primary source, but I do share Thebiguglyalien's concerns. --Hipal (talk)23:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s nothearsay. It’s multiple named (in some cases notable) individuals giving their recollections on the record to a prominent and reputable newspaper, echoing multiple previous anonymous interviews reported by other prominent and reputable outlets.BobFromBrockley (talk)06:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly the first accusation of Nigel Farage being racist. Take for example this Guardian article from 1999[31]. The article states as a matter of factFarage, who earns his living as a City commodity-broker, is a man who often used words such as "nigger" and "nig-nog" in the pub after committee meetings. There's also the much more famous UKIP founderAlan Sked's accusation that Nigel said“We will never win the nigger vote. The nig nogs will never vote for us.”[32] which I should point out that Farage has always vehemently denied.Hemiauchenia (talk)21:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(warning, I have strong opinions on Nigel Farage so what I say may not be taken as a view of a neutral observer, let alone an uninvolved admin,caveat emptor etc....) The article has now added multiple reliable sources backing up the original claim in the article. Also, the prose says that former Dulwich students onlyalleged he sometimes came out with racistlanguage, which is a long way from actually saying "Nigel Farage is a racist". The only serious concern is if this isdue weight in the article; given that it's a small passing sentence in (what should be) a neutral account of Farage's life, it doesn't seem problematic, though other people may disagree. In any case, a direct comparison can be made with the example inWP:BLPPUBLIC; the principal difference is the fictitious politician's affair created a public scandal, which Farage's alleged racism hasn't yet.Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)10:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes needed on this BLP of a vlogger accused of multiple improper acts that need to be described carefully. An RfC on his talk page concerns rumours he has Down’s syndrome.BobFromBrockley (talk)05:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right off the bat, 'His videos covering the Russian invasion of Ukraine, apparently attempt to spread Russian propaganda.'... the word apparently suggests this is a judgement call by someone... who? The next thing I see is that the lead is not a summary of the article, and while this is a pet peeve of mine that is over ridden by local consensus frequently, perMOS:LEAD: "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." To me, the lead should really be identifying what's notable about the person, fleshed out in detail below. It's not really doing that right now.Denaar (talk)16:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youDenaar. Many of my efforts to fix this have been reverted.BobFromBrockley (talk)23:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

much of the article still reads like an attack page. lots of work to do verifying claims with an eye on source quality. —Rutebega (talk)00:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6ix9ine

I’d like to request the removal of Laura Washburn’s name from this article. While she serves in a professional capacity, the mention is not directly relevant to the topic of this page. The decision to decline the donation was made by No Kid Hungry as an organization, not by an individual spokesperson.

I propose updating the paragraph in the Philanthropy section as follows:

Current: After returning from prison in 2020, Hernandez intended on donating $200,000 from the $2 million he had earned from "Gooba" to No Kid Hungry.However, the director of strategic communications, Laura Washburn, declined the donation, saying

Proposed: After returning from prison in 2020, Hernandez intended on donating $200,000 from the $2 million he had earned from "Gooba" to No Kid Hungry.However, the organization declined the donation, stating,

This change more accurately reflects that the organization, not a specific staff member, made the decision and issued the statement. It also better aligns with Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy, which discourages naming non-public individuals unless their inclusion is clearly relevant and well-sourced.EditHelper24 (talk)14:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EditHelper24, I have tweaked the wording to clarify that the organization declined the donation, but left the mention of Washburn because she is directly quoted. Any further suggestions are best made atTalk:6ix9ine.Schazjmd (talk)15:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, I left the job title but removed the name.Schazjmd (talk)16:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a sectionhere as it uses primary sources and sources unrelated to the article subject to negatively link a BLP subject to an organization. As I've invokedWP:BLPRESTORE reverting the restoration of that material I'm bringing it here for review.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)15:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good removal. No secondary sources linking the BLP to the organization shows a weight issue, coupled with a negative paragraph about the organization which is an impliedguilt by association issue. --Kyohyi (talk)16:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also atWikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard § Mark Burns (pastor)#Involvement with Allatra. I endorse the removal per above.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)16:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The content related to Russia was improper synthesis, so definitely not OK. No RS has covered his connection to AllatRa so it isn't DUE to include it.Fences&Windows18:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheyene Gerardi (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

I first brought this up as a proposal for deletion, seetalk:Sheyene Gerardi#Proposed deletion. I repeat my concerns here:

1. The CLASS Planetary Landing Team website (https://sciences.ucf.edu/class/landing-team/) does not mention Ms. Gerardi. The corresponding reference [2] quoted in the article (https://imgsnp.co/il67m) points to a JPEG with metadata indicating Ms. Gerardi as the author of the file and Adobe Photoshop as the software that produced it.

2. The claims under "Human rights and Peace activism" simply lack any references.

3. The references under "Philanthropy" can be classified as one of: scientific paper irrelevant to Ms. Gerardi, dead links to (presumably) web articles, a "Teaming Partner List" on the ARPA-E website with the notice "By enabling and publishing the Teaming Partner List, ARPA-E is not endorsing, sponsoring, or otherwise evaluating the qualifications of the individuals and organizations that are self-identifying themselves for placement on this Teaming Partner List" or tax filings.

Moreover, upon correctly adding thesubst:Proposed deletion tag to the article, the notice on the article pointed to a previous nomination for deletion:

The result was delete.
— User:KTC
— Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheyene Gerardi03:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The history of the article today shows "20:02, 18 November 2015" as its oldest timestamp, which I can only understand as the people behind this article flouting the deletion decision not even two weeks later.

A few hours later, however, a Wikipedian removed the Proposed deletion tag citingWikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. I proceeded to remove the unverifiable NASA claims from the article, but the rest of the article is similarly unverifiable, so I'm bringing it up to this noticeboard.

1akrmn (talk)20:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likeWP:BEFORE might answer your concerns and provide steps to take at a different forum. You're indicating cleanup is not enough. If all it needed was cleanup, BLPN would definitely be the place.JFHJr (㊟)05:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 November 2025, I removed some poorly sourced content from the biography of BritishLabour Party politicianLuke Akehurst, from three references which I don't consider as being good sources for a BLP. This was reverted by another editor, with the three references all put back in again.

The three references for separate content in the article are:

1) TheMorning Star is a tabloid with a low circulation. As perWP:RSP, there is no consensus on whether theMorning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus is that it's a biased and partisan source. As well as the source being a partisan tabloid on a BLP, I also think including the content in the article from the reference is undue weight, because it relates to an op-ed from aMorning Star journalist about a social media tweet that Luke Akehurst made in 2019, five years before he became a UKMember of Parliament in 2024.

2)The Skwawkbox is considered generally unreliable as perWP:RSP because it is self-published.

3) A tweet on X (formerlyTwitter) not by Luke Akehurst himself as the subject of the article. My understanding is that tweets not by the subject of the article are not good sources for a BLP as perWP:SOCIALMEDIA.

My edits to remove these references for the separate content were reverted with the edit summary of "MS is attributed".

There is also another unreliable source in the article, from the tabloidWP:METRO. But I suspect if I were to remove that source from the article, my edit might be reverted again.

I also don't thinkByline Times is a high-quality source for a BLP, but other editors may consider it being sufficiently reliable.Kind Tennis Fan (talk)16:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would think he is aWP:PUBLICFIGURE, so our policy is — If you cannot findmultiple reliablethird-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. And of course high-quality sources must be used in a BLP, and then there is also the consideration of whether the content is DUE or not. And even though Morning Star is attributed, it is stillWP:MREL and the only source being used for that particular paragraph, so I would consider that para poorly sourced and UNDUE. And Metro isWP:GUNREL, so any content sourced to that publication should be removed.—Isaidnoway(talk)06:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia noticeboards
• Wikipedia dispute resolution

• Noindexed pages
• Wikipedia move-protected project pages
• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed