Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

---

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Byron Mann – re-added incorrect DOB/age

The article Byron Mann has had an incorrect DOB/age re-added, sourced only to a 2015 GoErie feature that stated “48” in 2015. That is factually incorrect.

Per WP:BLP, contentious personal details about living people that are unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. Per WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information, dates of birth should not be included unless supported by high-quality, widely published sources.

Requesting admin/editor oversight to (a) confirm DOB/age should remain omitted, (b) prevent use of GoErie for DOB sourcing, and (c) consider page protection if re-adds continue.

Diffs: [add the diff link from history where age was re-added]. Byronmann (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Most sources that give a DOB say 13 August 1967, see e.g. this. You should not be editing your article per WP:AUTOBIO. GiantSnowman 21:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here [1]; pinging @Locke Cole as a potentially intersted party.

Now for a couple other things. For starters, I've reported the account to UAA as a safeguard against impersonation.

Next, @GiantSnowman, lots of sites will have pulled that from old revisions of the Mann article. As to the specific example you've found, as per WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, There is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information.

As to accuracy: the DOB was originally added, unsourced, to the article by an IP in 2010[2]. Two months later, Byron Mann (the editor) created an account & removed it[3], only to be immediately reverted by an admin because the edit broke formatting. (Hi @Fram) It's not actually that implausible that a local newspaper would, when moving quickly, consult Wikipedia for a DOB or other basic biographical details; making a typo on an current events article, then watching several newspapers coincidentally make the exact same typo teaches you that well enough. Can we find any pre-2010 sources? If not... I mean, a DOB isn't that important and there's been a genuine dispute over it for the better part of fifteen years.

As another interesting note, the IP who added the original DOB also added another, what appears to be fictious DOB [4] to a different actor article around the same time; the info was removed by an editor claiming to be the actor[5] and, after they were reverted, was eventually removed here[6]. They also added what is likely a fictious DOB to another article, here[7]. I don't think the IP was making these up, I think they might have been looking at non-RS or UGC, and weren't overly critical with what they added. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You can see my reply to this issue back when it first popped up a few weeks ago on the article talk page here. The only thing I'll add is that since the subject is vehemently denying their listed age (which I determined to be correct based on two independent sources), it's possible those sources used the incorrect date of birth in our article as their source for his age (resulting in a case of citogenesis).

The subject (if they are who they claim they are) should reach out to those two sources and ask them to issue a retraction or correct their online articles, otherwise I imagine this will just happen repeatedly.

Speaking of the article talk page, the subject started three new talk page threads in addition to this BLP discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Locke Cole Out of curiosity, are the two independent sources you added in this edit[8] what you're referring to? [9][10] The ones that both start with An honor student, actor Byron Mann had earned his law degree and passed the California bar exam only to be told by a fellow lawyer that he needed to get out of the field. Instead of being upset, Mann said he felt liberated.?

I agree that if there is an issue with the source, then contacting the news sites to get a retraction would be a good step. I will also say that the real Mr. Mann has said that the birthday listed on the Wikipedia page for so many years is wrong (UPROXX 20: Byron Mann’s Birthday Is Not August 13, Internet), so make what you want of that. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No, there was a different source and the age reported was different (because the source was published in a different year), but calculated back to the same year +/-1, which is why I felt comfortable restoring just the approximate age. I'll have to see if I can find the second source as I don't think I saved it. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

If you do, lmk.

I was reminded of this conversation because Byronmann has been unblocked by the VRT agent after confirming his identity. Seeing that he's been trying to remove this as incorrect since 2010, what's your opinion now on keeping it in? Personally, I suspect that the 1968 age may be a little off; you tend to pass your bar exam right around the age of 25. Mann passed his in 1993, which is a point in favour of the '68 date. However, we also know from RSs that he took a sabbatical; given how much work he did during that time, it's not unreasonable to think that was a multiyear affair, which does nudge the birthdate towards being a little earlier in the 1960s. This can't be added to the article, so right now we know only 3 things.

1. an IP with a less-than-steller batting average said that Mann's birthday was on X day; afaict this is the earliest this claim has been made
2. Mann disputes that, and has disputed both on and off Wikipedia that for fifteen years
3. The only outside sources we've been able to find that put his birthday around that time were published after the Wikipedia article's birthday went up.

Opinions? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I've removed it from the article for now, but I do agree that everything seems to line up correctly with the bar exam date. I know he was in Street Fighter, I'm wondering if any print publication from around that time had his birthdate or at least his age as of that period; it would precede our publication of the DOB by that IP and be significantly more reliable because of that. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Byronmann, GiantSnowman, and GreenLipstickLesbian: Alright, spent over an hour reading hits on Google News, let's see what we can find:

Date	Publication	"Age"	{{birth based on age as of date}}	URL	Quote
2015-12-29	Press of Atlantic City	48	1966 or 1967 (age 57–58)	[11] [12]	Although at 48 he's an international name, Mann says he wishes he had spent more time on relationships and less on work.
2018-07-05	South China Morning Post | PostMag	50	1967 or 1968 (age 57–58)	[13]	Mann, 50, who grew up in Kowloon, is a solid actor who has been a presence in many films, including Cold War (2012), The Man with the Iron Fists (2012) and The Big Short (2015), and a recurring character in such American television series as Arrow (2012-2017), Hell on Wheels (2015-2016), The Expanse (2017) and Altered Carbon (2018).
2018-07-11	Entertainment Weekly	50	1967 or 1968 (age 57–58)	[14]	Born and raised in Hong Kong, the 50-year-old actor returns home for the summer action film, starring as Inspector Wu, the police officer at the bottom of the titular skyscraper attempting to apprehend Johnson’s Will Sawyer, who has climbed his way into the burning structure.
2025-06-02	The Korea Herald	58	1966 or 1967 (age 58–59)	[15]	The Hong Kong-born, 58-year-old Hollywood veteran thought someone had their wires crossed.

Notes

That's one of the original sources from our current article, as well as three additional sources from various other dates/sources. Obviously the big problem with all of these is that they're sources after the incorrect date was added into our article, so it's possible these secondary sources are helping create a citogenesis situation. My intention is to use The Wikipedia Library's access to Newspapers.com and go spelunking through old print articles from the 90's and 2000's and see if I can't find something that predates the incorrect date of birth addition. Hopefully I'll have time this weekend to do that.

In the meantime, if anyone else is watching this and wants to take a look too, feel free to add to the table above any sources/details you find. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Apparently {{birth based on age as of dates}} is a functional template and takes two sets of data to try and narrow it down further. Here's the output using the South China Morning Post | PostMag and Korea Herald values:

1966 or 1967 (age 58–59) —Locke Cole • t • c 05:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

So 1967 looks to be correct? GiantSnowman 18:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, if we restore it, I'd use the template invocation from my comment you replied to (which automatically says "1966 or 1967" and gives an approximate age).

But as I mentioned, because all of the sources found so far are after the IP added the disputed date of birth, it's possible those sources are producing a citogenesis effect. A bad actor on Wikipedia inserts blatantly incorrect information, a reliable source picks up on it without verifying it, and then we use that reliable source to verify the previously unverified claim.

It seems highly unlikely that four unrelated sources would all use an incorrect and unverified date of birth.

And then there's the link GLL shared: UPROXX 20: BYRON MANN’S BIRTHDAY IS NOT AUGUST 13, INTERNET, granted it only seems to take issue with the month and day, not the year, but... between that article and the subjects comments here over the past 10+ years, clearly the subject is not happy with what we've been reporting. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The 4 sources you've provided say, following your analysis, 1966/1967 or 1967/1968 - which means, logically, it has to be 1967. GiantSnowman 19:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, the sources seem to be uncertain - in that case, if we include the DOB, we have to note that if several sources of about the same reliability contradict each other. Per WP:DOB, we don't get to chose which one we as people think is the best. We can probably also note that Mann (in the UPROXX interview) actively disputes the Aug 13. date. Normally I'm not a huge fan of getting stuff from interviews, but an actual, sourced, mention saying "Not this one!" might stop other people from adding the dubious day. (Who wants to Joan Crawford#Notes it?) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I know we generally disallow primary sources, but given the situation, would a primary source be usable so long as it's only to validate that a secondary source was correct or incorrect? But yes, showing all possible values and a footnote would appear to be the best outcome unless a pre-2010 source can be found. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, if you find Hong Kong birth records from the 1950s-1960s, I'm going to be really impressed. I personally wouldn't use them, as, like, authoritative or anything (I don't know how accurate they are or how to make sure we got the right one) but it would be interesting. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll be impressed too, I just didn't want to waste time looking if it would be prohibited outright, heh. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

A quick note that the "Press of Atlantic City" piece appears in other papers as coming from the TNS Wire, which I presume is Tribune News Service, for however that may impact its reliability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Akjemal Magtymova

Request for Review under Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) Policy

I am raising a concern regarding the section that states:

“Magtymova was accused of violations including misappropriating millions of dollars in agency funds, hiring relatives of Syrian government officials who were previously accused of human rights abuses, secretly meeting with Russian military officials, and acting in an ‘aggressive and abusive’ manner to WHO staffers. Magtymova was placed on leave on an unspecified date in 2022 pending investigation of the allegations against her…”

Change: Remove the entire Controversy section.

Reason (BLP):

- The section contains serious allegations based only on media reports citing unnamed staff.

- WHO has not released an official outcome or public confirmation of these allegations.

- Presenting unresolved claims gives undue weight, risks reputational harm, and violates WP:BLP, which requires immediate removal of contentious material about living persons that is unverified or poorly sourced.

Per WP:BLP, the appropriate action is to delete this section until/unless reliable, official findings are published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.252.105 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

no. there seems to be significant reliable sourcing. per WP:PUBLICFIGURE we include it Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

A standalone controversy section in most encyclopedic biographies is disfavored. See WP:WEIGHT. I've subordinated it to a career subsection. Same for the accolades. They're all professional subtopics. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Does this subject even meet WP:42? Much of the non-WP:PRIMARY sigcov appears to involve scandal (WP:BLP1E). It's a biography of failure amid unabashed promotion. JFHJr (㊟) 04:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Following up on earlier discussion: I propose rewording the controversy material for neutrality and balance, per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. The current text overstates unresolved allegations and lacks sufficient attribution/context.

1. Change:“Magtymova was accused of violations including misappropriating millions of dollars in agency funds…” → To: “In October 2022, the Associated Press reported that unnamed WHO staff alleged financial misconduct during Magtymova’s tenure in Syria. WHO has not published the outcome of its internal review, and no public statement confirming or denying the allegations has been issued.” Reason (BLP): Allegation must be attributed to media, not Wikipedia’s voice; outcome unresolved. Source: AP, 2022.

2. Change: “…hiring relatives of Syrian government officials who were previously accused of human rights abuses…” → To: “The Associated Press further reported claims from unnamed staff that she had hired relatives of Syrian officials. These claims remain unverified, and WHO has not published findings on the matter.” Reason (BLP): Needs attribution and flagging as unverified. Source: AP, 2022.

3. Change: “…secretly meeting with Russian military officials…” → To: “Media reports such as the Associated Press alleged she had met with Russian military officials. WHO has not issued any public confirmation of this claim.” Reason (BLP): Allegation must be attributed and clarified as unresolved. Source: AP, 2022.

4. Change: “…and acting in an ‘aggressive and abusive’ manner to WHO staffers.” → To: “The Guardian cited unnamed WHO staff alleging she displayed aggressive behavior toward colleagues. WHO has not publicly released findings regarding these claims.” Reason (BLP): Must be attributed to media, not Wikipedia’s voice. Source: The Guardian, 2022.

5. Change: “Magtymova was placed on leave on an unspecified date in 2022 pending investigation of the allegations against her.” → To: “According to media reports, Magtymova was placed on leave in 2022 while an internal review was ongoing. WHO did not release the outcome of that review.” Reason (BLP): Needs attribution and acknowledgment of unresolved outcome. Source: AP, 2022.

6. Change: “…sent an all-staff email claiming to be ‘very disturbed’ by the allegations against Magtymova.” → To: “According to the Associated Press, WHO Eastern Mediterranean Regional Director Ahmed Al-Mandhari sent an internal email to staff expressing concern about the reports. WHO has not issued a formal public statement confirming or denying the allegations.” Reason (BLP): Must be attributed; avoid implying institutional confirmation. Source: AP, 2022.

7. Add: “WHO’s Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office, in its 2020 announcement of her appointment in Syria, cited her ‘solid track record in managing health emergencies, diplomacy, and inter-agency collaboration.’ Independent outlets also covered her professional contributions, including recognition by the Government of Oman (Muscat Daily, 2020) and by Tufts University (Tufts Now, 2021).” Reason (BLP/WEIGHT): Adds balance with independent third-party recognition to avoid undue weight on controversy. Sources: WHO EMRO, 2020. Muscat Daily, 2020. Tufts University, 2021. 213.178.252.105 (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

We use scare words like WP:ACCORDINGTO when it's an issue of bias. I don't see any particular reason to treat these sources textually with an "according to" disclaimer. Attribution already appears in citation form, listed in notation at the end of the article. I previously removed the promotional language you propose in item 7; no reliable source (or even combination, especially non-primary source) supports that glowing passage teeming with detail that is obviously original research. It's not encyclopedic or correct to manufacture a sense of balance and call it WP:WEIGHT. I don't see any good reason to make the changes you propose. And this subject's education was entirely unreferenced for several years, so I removed that as well. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I gave this article a WP:PROD. JFHJr (㊟) 01:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Now at AFD: WP:Articles for deletion/Akjemal Magtymova. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fionn McLaughlin

Ambiguous nationality wording in Fionn McLaughlin article

I’d like to raise a BLP concern regarding repeated edits on the Fionn McLaughlin article.

Reliable sources consistently describe Fionn McLaughlin as Irish, with birthplace in Magherafelt, Northern Ireland:

Nationality: Irish — supported by reliable sources:

Red Bull Junior Team lists his nationality as Irish

DriverDB shows nationality: Irish

British F4 lists his nationality as Irish

He's describes hi own nationality in this video where he shows off the Irish flag (tricolour) on his helmet and its representing his country.

Repeated additions of the phrase “from Northern Ireland but races under an Irish flag” introduce ambiguity about his nationality that is not supported by these sources.

Per WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, the article should simply state:

“Fionn McLaughlin (born 29 October 2007) is an Irish racing driver from Magherafelt, Northern Ireland, who competes in the F4 British Championship with Hitech TGR as part of the Red Bull Junior Team.”

This phrasing is accurate, neutral, and avoids introducing political implications.

Requested action:

Remove or avoid the ambiguous “but races under an Irish flag” wording

Retain birthplace as Magherafelt, Northern Ireland

Consider warnings or protection if disruptive reverts continue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmymc2025 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jimmymc2025: I would strongly suggest reading WP:CT/TT and rewording your complaint. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: are these edits by Jimmymc2025 [16] [17] a violation of the 1RR in The Troubles topic area? (for context here is a previous version very similar to the one that Jimmymc2025 is pushing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

These edits have absolutely nothing to do with the Troubles era. I am merely clarifying the ambiguity created by the phrase “races under an Irish flag,” which is not supported by the cited sources (Red Bull, DriverDB, FIA F4). My edits are limited to ensuring that McLaughlin’s nationality is described neutrally and in line with reliable sources, without adding any political context Jimmymc2025 (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The Troubles topic area (Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/The_Troubles) also covers Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed. edit warring regarding the Irish nationality of a person from Northern Ireland reasonably comes under this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but my edits are not related to The Troubles or nationalism disputes. They are about ensuring the biography accurately reflects reliable sources (Red Bull, DriverDB, FIA F4), all of which describe McLaughlin’s nationality as Irish. The Good Friday Agreement allows people born in Northern Ireland to choose Irish or British citizenship, and McLaughlin is clearly an Irish citizen with an Irish passport. The only intention of my edits is to ensure the article complies with WP:BLP and WP:V by avoiding ambiguous or misleading wording Jimmymc2025 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. To clarify neutrally:

Reliable sources (Red Bull Junior Team, DriverDB, British F4, his own social media) list Fionn McLaughlin’s nationality as Irish, with birthplace in Magherafelt, Northern Ireland.

Repeated additions of the phrase “from Northern Ireland but races under an Irish flag” create ambiguity about his nationality, which is not supported by those sources.

Per WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, I propose the article state:

“Fionn McLaughlin (born 29 October 2007) is an Irish racing driver from Magherafelt, Northern Ireland, who competes in the F4 British Championship with Hitech TGR as part of the Red Bull Junior Team.”

This keeps both nationality and birthplace accurate without implying contradiction. Jimmymc2025 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This complaint and Jimmymc2025's reply looks AI generated or at least AI formatted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Its not AI generated, I cant spell well so I use AI to spell check. i formulated that and all links myself, not AI. Is that an issue? Jimmymc2025 (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

People from Northern Ireland can be officially British or Irish by their own choice, so it's best to stick with whatever self identification is used. See WP:UKNATIONALS#Northern Ireland: dual citizenship. Trying to simplify the issue to a single way of describing people from NI isn't possible or a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this has nothing to do with contentious topics relating to The Troubles. It's a bog standard BLP question and, clearly, the RS not only refer to the person as Irish, but the subject in question identifies as Irish. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it's definitely covered by CT/TT. But if he identifies as Irish and people keep changing it to races-as-a-fake-Irishman, they're the ones more likely to get in trouble. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Sarek. Yes, it's covered by CT/TT. The wording proposed by Jimmymc2025 is neutral and accurate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Jimmymc2025 (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s also important to note that McLaughlin not only identifies as Irish, but is an Irish citizen who holds an Irish passport. The FIA would not register him as competing for Ireland unless his citizenship status supported that. His Irish nationality is not in doubt. What could be considered a genuinely contentious issue is the repeated editing that he “races under an Irish flag,” which introduces unnecessary ambiguity and implies a distinction between his nationality and his representation that does not exist in the sources. Jimmymc2025 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Rampal (spiritual leader)

I'd appreciate a fresh set of eyes (or several) on Rampal (spiritual leader) - @Symran rana and myself are disagreeing over the lead sentence and a whole bunch of other content, and I have no desire to let it degenerate into more of an edit war than it already is. I also admit some minor WP:AITALK concerns given their comment formatting, but the core of the issue seems to be around the subject's murder conviction, whether or not said conviction should be incorporated into the lead, and whether or not the lead sentence should refer to him as a convicted murderer. As context, he was convicted in 2018, and earlier this year his sentence was suspended due to age and time served. I'm given to understand that he has an active appeal at the moment. All of this is pretty thoroughly sourced on the page itself.

A secondary issue is his organization's more recent charitable efforts, which have thus far all been sourced to the organization's own website and YouTube channel.

And of course, this is all complicated further by WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the subject being... uh, polarizing.

Would someone, or several someones, mind taking a look and potentially joining in? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:ANI is the better venue. Symran rana is a single-purpose account that exists purely to whitewash Rampal and spam the talk page with obviously machine-written posts. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

NekoKatsun, what this article and talk page need is a CU... Drmies (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NekoKatsun@Red Rock Canyon

I appreciate the call for fresh eyes. My contributions to this page have been focused on bringing a nuetral point of view to the page. The original lead was defamatory and even media channels dont use such harsh and gross language as was used earlier

I apologse for the initial commit where someone elses changes got conflicted and me being not so familiar with Wikipedia published them

My argument, grounded in WP:BLP's principle of "extreme care," which has now been updated by @NekoKatsun itself.

I have issues of the wording being factual without being misleading. As for the sources on charitable work, I agree that independent third-party sources are preferred, and I will continue to look for them. And start a thread when I have some Symran rana (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Nit : I have no issues of the wording being factual without being misleading. XD Symran rana (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

No please I would really like for other editors to chip in to this discussion. The entirety of how that article was written was nothing less than de-humanising. Calling out someone as a cult leader, which no media house has ever used even during the 2014 clashes.

I really do call upon on all of the editors to really look into these editorial practices. Why were these folks so adamant on keeping such defamatory language at the first sentence of the article. This article was clearly written to defame somebody without using neutral languages.

What is the intent to not add secondary sources that clearly mention that Rampal's charitable work. Yes we should clearly see the intent of the editors and I strongly call for why such a negative view point is being directly shoved in the readers face. Why is his biograpghy section removed/reverted time and again. Why is his philosophy, teachings, and legacy whenever added to the article are reverted. Why is there such a opposition for adding his charitable works.

The subject has been acquitted in 13 of 15 cases, why is there such a strong oppose to add a judgement section? The fact is, courts acquitted him under 2006 false charges, and found complainants guilty, which was his beginnings of legal trouble. How can such a simple fact not register in someones mind that when you say that the trial court has sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder case(which btw the family deceased was not supporting as cited in the newspapers you have mentioned) and the high court then suspends that decision with pending trial. That is a huge development in the case. I had never raised an issue with this person writing him off as a murder convict but then dont put that label without putting in context that the high court has suspended that decision and is currently pending trial sir.

Why were the 2013 clashes not mentioned in that article where police as mentioned by the supreme court was protecting Rampal against the aryasamaji goons that attacked the ashram again after 2006

The intent of this person to not add secondary sources that clearly mention that Rampal has helped over villages in north that were flood ridden. Providing food for needy people.

This article was clearly written to defame somebody without using neutral languages. No mentions of his charitable works, no mentions of his actual teaching. Just controversial stuff to defame somebody

I would really like to call upon other editors. Symran rana (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Barry Turner (author)

"Man-Made Disasters" (1978) was written by Barry Arthur Turner, a British engineer and scholar, not the (otherwise really great author and publicist) Barry Turner (author). Check B. A. Turner's professional background given in his book (available also at archive.org). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.43.209.118 (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Afaict, you're right. Removed. Thanks for noticing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Crystal McKellar

I am working on the biography article of Crystal McKellar. For several weeks already, User:Hipal has tried repeatedly to delete or minimize her Venture capital investor section, with ever changing reasons from the quality of sources to self-promotion to not enough notability, which I find very hard to conform to or reason with. They also frequently bring up the BLP guideline, which I don't see as providing the suitable ground for deletion of information either. Anyway, it should be noted that the section as well as the biography itself are brief and I don't have the intention to develop it into a huge article either. I don't see how a very brief description of her investments and involvement with these companies (such as becoming their advisor) based on reliable sources (Hipal has recognized that there is no problem with verifiability) is undue in this case. Also while the original details were written by me, the section has been rebuilt to a significant extent by User:Selbstporträt.

Hipal's tactic seems to be waiting for some days, then deleting parts gradually.

These are some instances of Hipal's larger deletions:

23:48, 11 August 2025:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crystal_McKellar&diff=prev&oldid=1305419386

16:22, 28 August 2025:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crystal_McKellar&diff=prev&oldid=1308293278

16:15, 24 September 2025:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crystal_McKellar&diff=prev&oldid=1313155252

Article after significant contributions by Selbstporträt as of 17:18, 13 August 2025:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crystal_McKellar&diff=prev&oldid=1305712246

Current article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_McKellar

Thanks in advance for help.--Deamonpen (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Crystal McKellar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Focusing on content: Briefly, too much of the article content is dependent upon press releases or similarly poor sources, leading to BLP, POV, and NOT problems throughout. Some of these sources are so poor that they contain only the briefest possible mention of McKellar or her company. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You have presented no evidences that they are press release and that the outlets do not do fact checking even though I have asked you repeatedly about that. You also degrade the sources with descriptions like "the likes" and "similarly poor sources" for no reason. The sources for the investments are typical in format for that kind of news, which is such and such startup receiving funding from VCs including McKellar's fund (Anathem, later rebranded Aloft). In the cases Anathem/Aloft is the lead funder and McKellar makes a remark or does some other notable thing (becoming advisor for example), the sources will include that information. There are no Wiki policies anywhere stating that we need full length scholarly research for verifiable small details in a biography. Your reason for them being poor sources, "Some of these sources are so poor that they contain only the briefest possible mention of McKellar or her company", is not reasonable at all. In fact (as seen in the Talk page of the article), you state that:

"Reliability isn't a concern."

"Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion."

It seems to me you do understand that these are normal sources whose editors do their job.

Deamonpen (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

We disagree, and your inability to WP:FOC and WP:AGF is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Strange accusation, again. Deamonpen (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I have observed similar behavior by the same editor on, for example, the Politico and the Ricardo Duchesne wikipedia articles - deleting significant sections of articles on the basis of inconsistent rationales. it is not that he or she is acting in bad faith, but that they interpret the need for reliable sourcing with such excessive zeal that standard reliable sources are treated as if they do not qualify.

An editor should approach a wikipedia article with the attitude of "how do I improve this or build on it", rather than deleting significant amounts of content on questionable grounds. Bob Gollum (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I would add that a reminder of WP:DNB would be appropriate in this context.

In particular:

"Improve, do not remove. If something does not meet Wikipedia's standards, first try to fix the problem rather than removing them....

"Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand." Bob Gollum (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I would say that there are multiple problems with their interpretation of policies, and yes they seem to lean towards deletism. They seem to always try various accusations and then wait to see if something stick. For example, they accused sources on the McKellar articles of being "press release and the likes", and being advertisement (no basis for this whatsoever). After some weeks they said that there was no reliability/verifiability problem but sources could not be used because the mention of McKellar/her VC was too brief. You see, on one hand, the source is advertising (for their own company/McKellar) and at the same time, the content concerning that company/McKellar is too short, too insignificant? Who does advertising in that manner? Let's emphasize that Wikipedia does not ban even self-published content (from their own website for example). It only becomes a problem when the content is blatantly self-promoting, or if one builds a whole section or article mainly with those self published sources.--Deamonpen (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

This is disruptive. Please FOC, AGF, and note that BLP and WP:CTOP has requirements that make such articles poor places for newcomers to be editing, let alone trying to trump content policies with a behavioral guideline. --Hipal (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Bob Gollum has been editing since 2023. I don't see anything disruptive about their behaviour. Please tone it down.--Deamonpen (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, User:Hipal, today you tried to invent a new tag to degrade the source without any basis. I am not the first one to recommend against this kind of behaviour from you on that page. Considering your justification being "If you are incapable of identifying press releases and similar publicity campaign materials, then we're wasting our time" (see Talk:Crystal_McKellar#Portfolio_list_disputed), I don't see how a proper reasoning for these problematic tags and deletion can be replaced with the magical ability to detect press release? Deamonpen (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Press releases, announcements, etc

When a reference begins and ends with Read the full press release from prnewswire.com here, can we agree that it's a press release? --Hipal (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Not necessarily; it indicates that a newspaper or other news source is reporting based on information in a press release. That is considered a valid source, because the news source is able to put the press release in context and assess its credibility. Bob Gollum (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

What is abnormal about "see the press release"? The press release often contains more materials, and the news channels cannot verify every single detail. The news channel then reports the core fact and recommends readers on one way to search for more information, which is also important for the business world. Even a critical reporting of the subject or a scandal will provide link to the press release if one exists.

Also, please conduct yourself to respect the existing consensus until you obtain a consensus on your side. Deamonpen (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You are talking about one reference here: The press release of Cooler Heads puts the name of Cooler Heads first "Cooler Heads Receives FDA Clearance To Help Save Cancer Patients' Hair", while Octane puts the name of LaunchPad first "LaunchPad Alumni, Cooler Heads Receives FDA Clearance To Help Save Cancer Patients’ Hair". So much for a paid PR stunt of Cooler Heads (which McKellar invests in) or McKellar's VC firm. Anyway, the facts the article states are that McKellar invested in Cooler Heads and joined its board, which has no inherent advertising quality, and also confirmed by San Diego Business Journal. Deamonpen (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

We disagree. Then there's also the problem WP:PRNEWSWIRE. I'm afraid it's selection and the edit-warring to keep it in are blatant BLP violations.

While we're looking at RSP, note the repeated identification of press releases are something to be avoided in WP:ARMYRECOGNITION, WP:AVN, WP:BLOOMBERGPROFILES, WP:BROADWAYWORLD, WP:REUTERS, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#XBIZ, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA.

If you'd like instruction on how to identify press releases, that might be fruitful. Let's focus on that. --Hipal (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bob Gollum, @Deamonpen; even though the Octane piece has a byline, if there is any original reporting or analysis in it I have not found it. The whole thing is a virtually word-for-word copy of parts of the original release, indicating the only "editing" that was done was removing content. This source cannot be used, and I have said as much in article talk. Xan747 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not you call it "editing", a third party at Octane has reviewed the Newswire press release and republished it in an article credited to an individual reporter. There seems nothing controversial or disputed about the information in it, and WP:PRNEWSWIRE allows uncontroversial statementa about the source of the press release.

I suppose who is doing the edit-warring is a matter for discussion. Bob Gollum (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

a third party at Octane has reviewed I can't believe you are serious.I'm having a great deal of trouble assuming this is a serious effort to address the policy issues identified. This is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Sarcasm isn't appropriate here. What do you know about the Octane site that leads you to believe they are just rubber stamps for press releases generally? And what do you see as controversial in the fact for which it was cited that would lead you to reject the citation? Bob Gollum (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Redacted. See discussions. I've identified why press releases are problematic (even from a clearly reliable publisher), and offered to discuss how to better identify them. --Hipal (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You have explained why, in your opinion, a news source that relies on a press release is problematic. That is not wikipedia policy, and wikipedia policy allows for use of press releases on non-controversial points. Bob Gollum (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

We get it, you two disagree; perhaps you both could stop reiterating that and allow other editors to comment? --JBL (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Please, jump in! Bob Gollum (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I have one more point and then I'm out. We know for sure that this piece is nothing more than verbatim content from the original press release, with some bits chopped out. The essay WP:PRSOURCE makes points I agree with. As for whether Octane has a reputation for fact-checking as we would expect a secondary source to have, https://octaneoc.org/mission/#team contains not one news editor or news reporter. They are pure and simple a PR firm and not a suitable for self-serving or other promotional claims about BLPs or their business dealings. Xan747 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Having reviewed the latest part of the discussion on article talk: this doesn't really seem to be the right noticeboard. Substantively, I agree with everything Xan747 wrote on the article talk-page. In particular, the Octane piece is obviously just a press release, and I would not use the Tectonic piece for anything in an encylopedia. --JBL (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Nina Jankowicz

Is The Volokh Conspiracy, founded in 2002 and hosted at Reason.com since 2017, a reliable source for Jankowicz losing her appeal of the dismissal of her libel suit against Fox News?

The author is Eugene Volokh, a fellow at the conservative think tank the Hoover Institution and former law professor (emeritus).

The authors state, "We are not Reason employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog ... Each blogger speaks only for himself or herself."

To me this is the same as a self-published source and should not be used for claims about third parties. At the very least it's opinion commentary and should be treated as primary source. Thoughts?

I'd also add that WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies here, meaning we would need multiple reliable, independent sources for the incident in question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC) edited 10:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's unusable. It would be fine when it's not something concerning a living person as a recognised expert self-published source but not when it concerns a living person. We don't even mention the appeal which since it was lost IMO isn't so important. I had a look and the only possibly usable source seems to be National Review [18] but they doesn't really mention the appeal just her comments that proceeded her loss of the appeal. (It does mention her criticising "judges of the Third Circuit" which hints there was an appeal but doesn't directly mention the appeal just that she lost her case.) Which IMO sort of shows the appeal doesn't matter much, even a source unlikely to be sympathetic to Jankowicz doesn't feel it was worth properly mentioning. Science-Based Medicine and ScienceBlogs are other examples where it's recognised a lot or all of their content is self-published. (We could have debates about whether content not written by Eugene Volokh is self published but that's irrelevant here.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The Volokh Conspiracy is a group blog by lawyers, most of whom are law professors. Volokh is a well-respected legal scholar, and his columns are RSs per EXPERTSPS but cannot be used for BLP content per BLPSPS. However, a legal case involving someone is not the same as the person themself (see this related discussion at WT:BLP last month). Some of Volokh's columns are opinion columns; others are primarily excerpts from legal rulings highlighting key sections of the ruling. The column you linked to is an example of the latter. So I'd say that it's acceptable for a simple statement of fact that she lost the appeal. But there are better sources, such as this Law360 article (and that's not the only alternative source I found with a Google search on ["nina jankowicz" "third circuit" appeal] limited to the last month). FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The first useer replying to you in that discussion opined that claims directly about a living person that are otherwise uncorrobated by fact-checked reliable sources are in fact covered under BLPSPS, which is exactly what the source in question contains. The subject of the biography herself is the subject of the disputed text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

A statement about a legal ruling (e.g., "the Third Circuit upheld the district court's ruling") is not a statement "directly about a living person." And as I noted above, there are reliable non-SPS for this content. Why persist in debating Volokh's column instead of just using a good non-SPS?

Also, re: your comment below, "related to" is broader than the actual BLPSPS policy. It cannot be used for material about a living person themself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed that. Now please explain how she lost the appeal is not a statement about a living person. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

But it doesn't have to be worded to be about her, as I already noted. And again: Why persist in debating Volokh's column instead of just using a good non-SPS like Law360? If you really want to word it to be about her, you can word it to be about her using that as a source. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The subject is the same no matter how you word it. It's still about the lawsuit brought by Jankowicz whether she is directly mentioned or not. This isn't peek-a-boo; the fact that this is a story about a living person doesn't magically vanish just because her name isn't mentioned. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

No, Jankowicz is not the subject of the sentence "the Third Circuit upheld the district court's ruling." This is straightforward English grammar.

And again: Why do you persist in debating Volokh's column instead of just using a good non-SPS like Law360? Seriously: you keep ignoring this question. Why? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You yourself summarized the statement as she lost the appeal. So how exactly is Jankowicz not the subject? This isn't a grammar lesson, we're talking about material being added to a biography of a living person. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

If you cannot tell the difference between the subject of "she lost the appeal" and the subject of "the Third Circuit upheld the district court's ruling," that's a problem on your end.

And again: Why do you persist in debating Volokh's column instead of just using a good non-SPS like Law360? Seriously: you keep ignoring this question. Why? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The statement about the Third Circuit only has meaning in the context of a lawsuit being brought by the subject of the article. No amount of word games is going to change that. Her name is literally in the title of the judgment, for crying out loud. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Why do you persist in debating Volokh's column instead of just using a good non-SPS like Law360? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Is Law360 the only reliable, independent source for this material? If so, we should still leave it out per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not a particularly contentious. She filed suit and lost. She appealed and lost again. The factual matter is not in debate and the article, as it currently sits, is incomplete without the conclusion. Absadah (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

It's doubtful whether any Wikipedia article is ever "complete", especially regarding a subject who is still alive. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Completeness is not the relevant issue for this noticeboard; following BLP policy is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

It isn't. You seem to be working incredibly hard at coming up with reasons to exclude totally straightforward relevant information, who knows why. I'm not going to put any more time into this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this is broadly true. Notably, nobody has made the claim that anything Volokh has said is incorrect, or even that he was biased in saying it. Just for the purpose of my own edification, this is the case, yes? The claims are true, the person who made them is credible, and the website he made them on is credible, but we are here discussing whether the part of the website he published this writing on is sufficiently rigorous to cite? jp×g🗯️ 06:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:BLPSPS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• The edit in question is not contentious or critical material on the subject [19]. Its a statement of fact documenting the outcome of a lawsuit Jankowicz filed and contains a primary and secondary source. Absadah (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  Whether you are I think it's contentious is irrelevant; self-published sources cannot be used at all for claims about third parties. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  Would you accept Law360 as an acceptable source for the statement of fact in question? Absadah (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  No claim is being made about the person. They are reporting a judicary action (losing the appeal) which is not a claim about a living person. Masem (t) 19:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Who lost the appeal? It didn't occur spontaneously in a vacuum. If we replace the word appeal with an equivalent phrase such as appeal by Jankowicz, it's obvious that this relates to a living person. Per WP:CT/BLP, all claims relating to the subject of a BLP article are to be treated with the same consideration as claims about the subject themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The statement that the nominator removed, because it was "WP:UNDUE based on WP:NEWSOPED primary sources," because the author, Eugene Volokh, is a "random opinion commentator" in the sense of "not being a recognized expert or having any connection to the subject, just another blogger pushing an agenda and/or chasing clicks," because the claim is "exceptional," and because it is "unreferenced or poorly referenced information" and "controversial," said, verbatim, in its entirety:

"In September 2025, the Third Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's 2024 dismissal of the suit."

The deletion also disdained this accompanying item at Reclaim the Net as opinion journalism, though there seems to be no discussion of RTN in the RSN archives that would support that characterization. Because the nominator subsequently blanked the initial 2024 dismissal, presumably because it was also sourced to Volokh, the article merely said that Jankowicz had sued Fox in 2023, eliding that the suit had been dismissed and the appeal struck down. That does not look like an effort to improve the encyclopedia. When in a later edit he dismissed WP:WASHINGTONEXAMINER and WP:REASONNEWS as "libertarian/right wing propaganda peddlers," he rather told on himself.

I submit that the above criticisms are overblown and beside the point, given that this item is not about Jankowicz herself, it is purely matter-of-fact, and has been mentioned by enough sources in a sufficiently neutral manner to merit inclusion. This may be a rare case in which a WP:PRIMARY source is adequate to support the claim, though the presentations by Volokh and RTN are easier to comprehend. WP:REPUTABLE: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." The nominator seems eager to apply every policy but that one. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

If the item is not about Jankowicz herself then why does it belong in her biography?

The page at Reclaim the Net literally has the words Fight censorship and surveillance. Reclaim your digital freedom at the top of the page. It's self-evidently an opinion source that exists to push an agenda.

BLP policy takes precedence, and WP:BLPSPS does not make an exception for recognized experts, whether you or I find them reputable or not. The qualification regarding newsblogs where the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control doesn't apply here. If you have concerns about my other edits you can take them to WP:AN/I. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

That you believe BLP policy takes precedence over common sense and editorial judgment is the whole problem here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, and you are not the only one with "common sense", whatever that means. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

BLP policy definitely takes precedence over common sense and if you're unwilling to accept that please refrain from editing anywhere it applies Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The idea that court documents can be used for judgments concerning living persons for simple matters was not accepted in the most recent discussion on the issue Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 58#Published judicial documents. So no it's not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Correct. There's a huge difference between a court filing or a biased blog, which shouldn't used as BLP sources, and a story from a paper of record or the American Bar Association Journal that puts everything in context, which can be used. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I wonder if there may be a mistaken belief by some editors here that BLP only concerns itself if something is factual and if it is then BLP is irrelevant. This isn't correct. Even if there's no doubt something is factual, it doesn't mean it merits inclusion in any article per WP:UNDUE, but especially in articles about living persons. This is why BLP mentions stuff like "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented" etc. Nil Einne (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not self published, it's published by Reason, a "generally reliable" source - see WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. And the claim here is hardly "exceptional", it says that a ruling dismissing a lawsuit was upheld, the most normal claim imaginable. Hi! (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

No per the blog itself Reason have no editorial control. Reason are therefore just hosting it. This is no different from FORBESCON or any other news site which hosts blogs without editorial control. The blogs are correctly treated as self published because only the authors decide what is posted, how it is worded etc and not the hoster, no matter if the hoster itself is normally reliable. Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Volokh is EXPERTSPS, but EXPERTSPS can be used for non-BLP content (and "the Third Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal" is not a BLP claim). More to the point, the Volokh column isn't the only one that covered this routine content. There's more than one independent, non-SPS, non-primary, non-op ed RS that covered it. I mentioned one of them above: Law360. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

If it's not BLP content then it doesn't belong in a biography of a living person. And you keep saying there are multiple non SPS secondary sources but refuse to list them. Since this at least one editor has raised a good faith BLP objection this should stay out until there is consensus and there is no way consensus will be achieved when an editor keeps telling us sources exist but refuse to list them except perhaps consensus for exclusion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

"If it's not BLP content then it doesn't belong in a biography of a living person" is your opinion, and it doesn't seem to be shared by most editors, as biographical articles regularly contain some information that is not about the subject themself as a person, but is instead about something related to that person. For example, the biographical article about Trump says "Judges found many of his administration's actions to be illegal, and several have been described as unconstitutional." That's not about Trump himself (a person); it's about actions by the Trump administration (not a person). In Jankowicz's own article, there are sentences that are not about her as a person (e.g., "The New Yorker Joshua Yaffa called it [i.e., the book How to Lose the Information War] 'a persuasive new book on disinformation as a geopolitical strategy,'" and similarly for her other book). Conversely, one can find BLP content in articles where the subject is not a living person.

"you keep saying there are multiple non SPS secondary sources but refuse to list them." I've never been asked to list any, so it's impossible for me to have refused. Sangdeboeuf asked "Is Law360 the only reliable, independent source for this material?," which is a yes or no question, and the answer is no, which I said. I also said "more than one." If you are now asking for another, here's another: The Washington Free Beacon (WP:FREEBEACON, biased but RS). Aside from the claim I made about independent, non-SPS, non-primary, non-op ed RSs, you can also find other RSs that fail one of the qualifiers, such as the BLPSELFPUB that she wrote about it, and this opinion piece in Bloomberg.

"at least one editor has raised a good faith BLP objection." Please articulate what that good faith objection is. This is totally routine information: she filed a suit (already in the article), the judge dismissed the case (not in the article, but easy to confirm with RSs, for example, here and here), and an appeals court upheld the dismissal. If the case is significant enough to include (and right now, it has a paragraph in the article), then the outcome should be included. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Articles by Andrew Stiles in the Free Beacon were named specifically in the 2025 RfC as a grab bag of undue BLP material, opinion pieces, joke articles, etc. This article by Stiles, which is chock full of hyperbole and opinion, is certainly not reliable for BLP content, which is exactly what the material in question is (sophistry notwithstanding). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

And you've yet to explain why you won't use Law360. Or, for that matter, why you won't use Jankowicz's own BLPSELFPUB about it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I've never been asked to use it, so it's impossible for me to have refused. These word games are getting tiresome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Check your so-called quote. Then link to the comment where you think I was asked for the alleged list. Also, paying attention to the actual meanings of words isn't a game. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting, but paraphrasing (you) to highlight the absurdity of your replies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

And you've yet to explain why you won't use Law360. Or, for that matter, why you won't use Jankowicz's own BLPSELFPUB about it. You seem to look for deflections. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there anything stopping you from adding either of those two sources to the article yourself? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to add contested content without consensus, per WP:ONUS. We cannot get closer to consensus if you won't explain. Please answer the following:

• Do you object to using Law360, and if so, why?
• Do you object to using Jankowicz's blog (per BLPSELFPUB), and if so, why?

FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You have it backwards. If you want consensus to use a given source, then it's on you to explain why the source is relevant and supports the material in question, per WP:ONUS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Yours is a false dichotomy. Both of us should want consensus. That's one of WP's key policies, WP:CON. Both of us should be working towards consensus (either to add the material, or not to add the material). Therefore it's entirely appropriate for me to ask you questions that will help me understand your views, and it behooves you to answer them. Are you going to work towards consensus with the others of us here?

I think it's self-evident that they're relevant, given that there's already a paragraph about the case in the article. Both note that the Third Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal of the case, which provides a conclusion to the paragraph instead of leaving the reader guessing about how the case concluded. Law360 is an RS (not much discussed at the RSN, but here are a couple of mentions: this section, and two comments in this section). Using Jankowicz's blog to say something like "the Third Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal of the case" meets the five criteria for BLPSELFPUB. (If you disagree, just say which of the criteria you think isn't met.) If you're uncertainl about the reliability of one or both, we can go to the RSN and get others' opinions. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The current revision of the article states, A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in July 2024. There's no mention of an appeal, and no reason for anyone to think there was an appeal. So I don't see why anyone would be unsure as to how the case concluded. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that your response to the two questions I asked is something like "yes, I object, because information about the appeal is UNDUE". Have I inferred correctly? FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPSELFPUB is about BLPs publishing about themselves. Material about a lawsuit a BLP is involved in clearly falls under the BLP umbrella, especially if it's being included in their article. Can't use self-published sources for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

As written, BLPSELFPUB also allows publishing about those with whom one's relationship is not third party (though that's contested by some), as is the case in a court case. But if you prefer, the text sourced to her blog could say something like "Jankowicz appealed the dismissal and lost her appeal." FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

You are treating this article like you own it. You aren't adequately explaining your mostly unilateral actions, aren't willing to make compromises to language/additions and are ignoring what seems to be a nearly overwhelming consensus. Per FactOrOpinion

• Do you object to using Law360, and if so, why?
• Do you object to using Jankowicz's blog (per BLPSELFPUB), and if so, why?

Absadah (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I started this thread to get input about the Volokh source. If anyone wants to use a different source, they can make a case for it themselves. How can I object to a source if no one has even bothered to explain what it says?

Also, following WP:OWN does not mean letting you do whatever you want in violation of BLP policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

No that's your incorrect interpretation. BLPs contain the information but it is implicitly about a living person and is covered by BLP. That's why it's included. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This is completely false. Giant amounts of non-BLP information belongs in BLPs (both information about persons other than the subject, and information about things that are not persons at all). This is obvious upon reading one (emphasis mine):

• Mark Twain grew up in Hannibal, Missouri, a port town on the Mississippi River [...]
• Prior to Edison, many inventors had devised incandescent lamps, including Alessandro Volta's demonstration of a glowing wire in 1800 and inventions by Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans. Others who developed early and commercially impractical incandescent electric lamps included [...]
• Salk's inactivated polio vaccine came into use in 1955. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines.

The importance and impact of the polio vaccine is obviously necessary to write an article about Jonas Salk. jp×g🗯️ 06:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

By including them in a BLP, they inherently become about a living person and are therefore covered by BLP. For example if Edison was a living person, then any coverage of inventors of incandescent lamps in his biography would need to take into account if there was any disputes over these inventions and how this affected Edison's portrayal in our article. The use of primary sources or expert SPS would need to be generally excluded for this although they would be fine in articles on incandescents lamps. The same with the timeframe of when the inactivated polio vaccine first came into use. Is there dispute over whether Hannibal was a port town? Does this dispute affect Twain in some way (e.g. he felt he didn't grow up in a port town and therefore his experience was different from those who did). We're presenting this person's and their work (or life or whatever) in a certain light in their biography and we need to great care to get this right. To be absolutely clear, the fact you're presenting this information in a biography of a living person means you are making this information as information about a living person and therefore covered by BLP. This means we need to follow strict sourcing standards, far stricter than we do in general articles because we're effectively making claims about a living person by presenting this information in our article on this person. This comes up a lot on subjects known for pseudoscience or fringe science where editors understandably opposed to pseudoscience and fringe science want to use expert SPS or similar to make claims about the fringe science or pseudoscience the person is involved in, which might be fine in an article on the pseudoscience (provided we don't relate it to a specific person) but is not okay in a biography about a living person. Nil Einne (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS certainly applies: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." That implies that if the blog is not subject to the newspaper's full editorial control, as in this case (see [20]), then it's considered a self-published source. I personally view Volokh as trustworthy, and he's clearly an expert in his field, but in this case he's just a guy writing on his blog. If this information is significant to Nina Jankowicz's life and career, then it will be widely reported enough that we don't have to rely on a blog as a source. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, "exceptional" means, among other things, apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources [or] challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources, all of which applies here. The source must be judged in the proper context – an op-ed published in The New York Times is still just someone's opinion, despite the NYT being considered generally reliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The National Review piece is sufficient to establish that she lost the case in an appellate court, a fact which is a wholly uncontroversial and completely uncontested claim. From other sources we know that she intended to appeal the lower court's decision. On the strength of these alone we should be able to add one sentence to the effect that the 3rd Circuit upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Fox. The Law360 article is paywalled so I cannot confirm its exact text, but if someone can and it more explicitly supports the proposed content, it should also be cited. Whether Volokh can be used is a moot question and should be dropped. Xan747 (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to add that National Review source but was reverted by Sangdeboeuf. jp×g🗯️ 21:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I still don't see why the Law360 article isn't sufficient. It's certainly an RS. I asked Sangdeboeuf "Do you object to using Law360, and if so, why?", but they wouldn't answer. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The Law360 article seems to be behind a paywall. Can you quote the relevant portion that supports the proposed addition to Jankowicz's biography? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

N.B.: Once again, you refused to answer a relevant question posed to you, but want me to answer a question posed by you. You've done this more than once. It's counterproductive and demonstrates double standards.

Here's a relevant excerpt:

The Third Circuit on Friday [September 12] upheld a win for Fox News Network LLC and Fox Corp. in a defamation lawsuit from the onetime head of the Biden administration's disinformation watchdog, holding that the unflattering claims the network's hosts made about the agency were opinion or not proven to be untrue. … The panel held that the statements challenged in Delaware federal court by Nina Jankowicz, former executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, either did not concern her, constituted nonactionable opinion or were substantially true. Writing for the appellate panel, U.S. Circuit Judge L. Felipe Restrepo said the claims fell short of the pleading standard for defamation under New York law, which the parties stipulated would apply.

FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Another relevant clip:

The panel also found that the remaining statements, even if arguably factual, were substantially true. This included assertions that Jankowicz had been "fired" or "booted" from the department, language the court said captured the gist of her departure, considering that the board was suspended and her position eliminated.Fox's characterization of her public remarks about Twitter's Birdwatch program — where Jankowicz expressed interest in allowing verified users to add context to others' tweets — was held to be a fair interpretation of her statements. "Because Jankowicz expressed appreciation for the Birdwatch feature — even though she noted it was not a global solution to Twitter's problems — it was substantially true to say she had 'pitched' it," the court said. Absadah (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how the National Review piece supports her losing the appeal. As I noted before, it mentions her comments on the Third Circuit ("She lambasted the judges of the Third Circuit for asserting that the audience would interpret Fox’s coverage as opinion about a politically charged topic.") but doesn't actually explain what this is about. It says she lost her case, but it doesn't mention this includes an appeal. Using this very limited mention to say she had an appeal which she lost is IMO clear WP:Synthesis. As I mentioned before, in fact to my mind what the National Review piece supports is that the appeal wasn't a particular important or significant part of he story since it doesn't bother to discuss it in any real way. If sufficient other sources mention her appeal, we could use them but so far everyone just keeps mentioning Law360 despite their supposedly being multiple other RS. If editors feel this single RS is enough to mention the appeal, I'm probably not going to fight it. But I can also see the point that it's questionable if this single mention complies with WP:PUBLICFIGURE or is WP:DUE if editors can only find a single reliable secondary source about this highly notable person which bothers to mention the appeal. What's even more mysterious is that editors keep saying there are multiple RS but it all keeps coming back to the Law360 source with any other sources presented so far AFAIK either not being RS for a BLP issue (The Volokh Conspiracy), or not actually mentioning the appeal (National Review). Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

"It says she lost her case, but it doesn't mention this includes an appeal." The Third Circuit only makes statements in the context of an appeal. It's a US Court of Appeals. But the National Review is only a marginal source and must be evaluated on a case by case basis. There are also other sources of this sort (e.g., Townhall). "despite their supposedly being multiple other RS," per a request, I quoted relevant text from a paywalled Law360 article and I presented a second RS (The Washington Free Beacon, which is biased but RS per the RSN), which Sangdeboeuf rejected because because they objected to the bias and the specific author. Here are two more RSs (1, 2). WP:PUBLICFIGURE isn't in play, as that policy has to do with a Presumption in favor of privacy, and there is no privacy issue here: the court case and all filings are public, and Jankowicz has commented on it publicly here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

"The Third Circuit only makes statements in the context of an appeal. It's a US Court of Appeals." - which is synthesis. Also there is no way to know from this whether these comments were made when denying to the appeal or during oral arguments or whatever (i.e. the appeal may be ongoing). Arguing that National Review saying she lost her case must also mean she lost her appeal is again synthesis. I'd argue it's not even very good synthesis since I can perfectly see the National Review saying that when the appeal is ongoing. The only thing perhaps they would have done different is to at least note there is an ongoing appeal although frankly some worse sources might not have mentioned that.

And PUBLICFIGURE applies to anything we want to include, any editor editing BLPs needs to know that. Many things are "public" and even received commentary from the subject but are excluded precisely because almost no one else cares about them. (While divorces judgments can be private, they can also be public. Notice that the commentary on this however simply talks about whether there is coverage in third party sources. Likewise if someone posts allegations on Twitter (not DMs but tweets), and the person these allegations are about responds on Twitter, these are public. Twitter is by definition an open public platform. However again what matters is whether anyone else cared about this public spat, not whether it's "public").

Washington Free Beacon and Wichita Eagle combined with Law360 may be enough to get around PUBLICFIGURE concerns, it's a pity it took so long to get here. Not convinced about Law.com though as it seems just routine summary of a case.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Having now checked out the Washington Free Beacon article, IMO it's not suitable for a BLP. While it doesn't label itself as opinion it clearly is written like one. This means we're now IMO down to two RS Wichita Eagle and Law360. This isn't ideal for such a notable BLP, and I again have to ask why we need to scrape the bottom of the sourcing barrel for something which is allegedly important in the article on such a figure? It seems clear that for whatever reason reliable sources didn't care about this appeal. It's not like there are plenty of right-wing sources we could use but none of them thought this mattered. Even Reason which people keep bringing up didn't care. And as I noted, even The National Review didn't while talking about the case. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not among the people who've been arguing in favor of using the National Review; I purposefully omitted it as an MREL source. I was simply noting a few facts relevant to the discussion here (where SYNTH is allowed). I don't see the point of continuing to discuss it.

You reject Law.com for no reason. We have 3 RSs, and neither Law360 nor Law.com are "the bottom of the barrel." They're both solid RSs for legal information (Law.com is used as a reference on over 1300 articles, so is Law360). That it's a routine summary with the update about the Third Circuit ruling is fine.

Your argument comes down to: is it DUE? Editors here clearly have different opinions about that. I think that if it's worth having a short paragraph about the case, it's worth adding a short sentence along the lines of "She appealed the case to the Third Circuit, which upheld the district court's ruling."

No, PUBLICFIGURE does not apply to anything we want to include. It's very explicitly about content that falls under "allegation or incident", where the info might be considered private (which is why it's a subsection of Presumption in favor of privacy). People distinguish between public figures and people who are relatively unknown in discussion, but not because PUBLICFIGURE applies to anything we want to include. That things might be excluded despite being public is a matter of judging whether it's DUE, not whether there are multiple sources. A variety of info in BLPs may have only one RS (e.g., Peter Person wishes Fiona Friend a happy birthday on Twitter, and Fiona confirms that it's her birthday; if we have no other source for the birth date, we'd very likely include it under BLPSELFPUB). If you think there's really a question about this, then that discussion should occur at WT:BLP, not here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You're mistaken. If you're going to question the interpretation it's on you to get consensus to support your view. BLP is clear on this. I had been planning to let this go but the ridiculous misapplication of BLP means I can no longer do so and have therefore removed the info based on a good faith BLP objection. Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

P.S. The DOB thing is something explicitly covered in BLP in big part because it's a common area of dispute. Some people regard it as basic biographical information which should always be included even if the sourcing is very limited. This view has been consistent rejected especially given the risk of identity theft. In the end it was decided that if the information is widely covered or if the source themselves has publicised the information it's fine to include, but otherwise it isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Presumption in favor of privacy
Public figures
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (emphasis added)

In no way does it apply to all BLP info about public figures. I already gave you a counterexample, and your admission that "if the source themselves has publicised the information it's fine to include" shows you acknowledging that a single source can be acceptable. Now your turn: quote the policy text that you believe supports your interpretation.

"the ridiculous misapplication of BLP"

But we have three RSs, so I don't see how you consider it a misapplication even according to your misinterpretation. "have therefore removed the info based on a good faith BLP objection" What is that good faith BLP objection? I asked you this earlier and you didn't respond. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I explained above that the Free Beacon source is not reliable here; it's basically an opinion essay. Jankowicz losing her appeal qualifies as an incident and is covered by WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The divorce example makes it clear that this extends to court proceedings. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Why are you raising the Free Beacon in response to me yet again? (Please answer.) I altready pointed out to Nil Einne that you'd rejected it, and I two additional sources besides Law360: Law.com, and the Wichita Eagle.

I don't agree that "Jankowicz losing her appeal qualifies as an incident." The divorce example makes clear that it can extend to court proceedings, but in no way dos it imply that it always extends to court proceedings. Moreover, the proposed sentence is about the appeal as a case, not simply about her losing the appeal (the final ruling in that case): that she decided to appeal is half of the proposed sentence. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were counting the Free Beacon as one of the three supposedly reliable sources.

Incident means "an occurrence of an action or situation". Jankowicz filing an appeal of her case was an incident. Jankowicz losing her appeal was another incident. Basically anything that happens is an incident and so is covered by WP:PUBLICFIGURE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I invite you to participate in WT:BLP § Does PUBLICFIGURE apply to all content in a BLP or only allegations/incidents where there might be public figure privacy concerns ― FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Given what you said there, I want to point out that I was not ignoring WP:BLPPRIMARY. I was not saying that any court documents should be used; I'm well-aware that they should not be. I was only saying that there is no privacy issue because the court docket is public and Jankowicz has chosen to discuss it publicly in her Substack. As for "Basically anything that happens is an incident," no, it isn't. And you should stop cutting off quotes in ways that alter their meaning. That M-W definition was "an occurrence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience", and of course it's not the only relevant definition there, nor is M-W's the only definition one might use. For example, the OED: "Something that occurs casually in the course of, or in connection with, something else, of which it constitutes no essential part; an event of accessory or subordinate character," "An occurrence or event viewed as a separate circumstance." Lastly, given that we now have 3 RSs―Law360 (where you asked for a relevant quote, I provided it, and you did not respond further), Law.com, and the Wichita Eagle―are you satisfied that there's sufficient sourcing? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

As long as we're cherry-picking definitions, we could go with 1.b.: ... a particular episode (air-raid, skirmish, etc.) in war; an unpleasant or violent argument, a fracas per the OED. However, 2.a. an occurrence or event viewed as a separate circumstance is closer to the Merriam-Webster definition as well as to how most users probably understand the meaning of incident in this context. Or are you trying to say that this particular court case is somehow not a separate unit of experience? Armchair philosophy is fun, but saying that an occurrence of someone losing a court case is not also an incident is silly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree that the 3rd Circuit dismissal is a "separate circumstance." It's part of the appeal, which is in turn part of the case. Your statement was "Basically anything that happens is an incident." According to you, what is the "incident" here: the ruling? the appeal? the entire case? something else?

And are you going to say whether you agree that the 3 RSs are now sufficient? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Any of the above can be described as incidents. The one we're discussing is the Third Circuit's ruling. It certainly is a separate circumstance, since there was a time after the appeal been filed when the ruling didn't yet exist. So they are not one and the same. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

By saying there is no privacy issue because the court docket is public, you are in fact ignoring WP:BLPPRIMARY. Privacy concerns around a court case involving a living person don't magically vanish just because the part of BLP policy that says Do not use trial transcripts and other court records ... to support assertions about a living person is in a different section than the one with the word privacy in the heading. The fact that Jankowicz discussed the case in her Substack is a separate issue entirely. You could have made a convincing argument with that instead of muddying the waters with the court records stuff. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

If no reliable source discussed any part of this lawsuit, then absolutely we should not use court documents to include it. But once it's clear the mention of the suit has been brought up by RSes already and considered DUE to imclude, we should absolutely document all final court proceedings of that suit, even if those aren't covered by RSes, because it can be a BLP to leave the situation unresolved and appear the case is still going. That coverage should be strictly limited to what the courted determined without analysis, absent any other discussion from RSes. Masem (t) 19:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The current revision of the article says, A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in July 2024, citing two third-party WP:GREL sources. There's no mention of an appeal and no appearance that the case is still ongoing or unresolved. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It can be generally assumed that a person losing case will try to appeal the result, so citing the court de vision or these "blog" sources to say "she lost her appeal at soandso court" is definitely not a "claim" that BLPSPS is meant to require caution against. Masem (t) 21:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't assume that; otherwise no lawsuit would ever end until it reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which seems unlikely. What is the basis for this assumption? Saying she lost her appeal presumes there was an appeal to begin with, which is not stated in the article. So yes, it's a claim that needs reliable sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

And yet you refuse to say whether you accept that we now have reliable sourcing.

Masem, according to the stats here, the vast majority of district court rulings are not appealed.

Sangdeboeuf, although most Court of Appeals cases are not appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court also denies certiorari to the vast majority of cases that are appealed to it. They only grant cert to ~3% of the appeals. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that privacy concerns around a court case involving a living person magically vanish just because the part of BLP policy that says Do not use trial transcripts and other court records ... to support assertions about a living person is in a different section than the one with the word privacy in the heading. But BLPPRIMARY says not to use them as sources. It does not say that editors cannot consider them in reasoning about something in a talk page discussion, including reasoning about whether a policy applies.

But again, we now have 3 RSs (4 if you count Jankowicz's Substack statements). No one is suggesting that the either BLPPRIMARY or PUBLICFIGURE be ignored here. Instead of continuing to go down rabbit holes, how about focusing on the main issue: can/should the info about the appeal be added now? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be clear, when I said we took ages to get here, let's not forget that this thread has included a bunch of junk arguments like claims something in an a BLP is not about a living person, or continual claims that the The Volokh Conspiracy is not self-published or that it's somehow okay to use despite being an SPS and other stuff. And even now we still have the silly claim that it isn't covered by PUBLICFIGURE. 21:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps I also shared a role in this, but OTOH, if someone brings up The National Reviewer, I think it's reasonable to point out that even if we accept that this is a source completely fine for a BLP, the actual article does not support any claim editors want to make about an appeal, even that it existed, except via WP:Synthesis. It's important editors recognise this if they want to edit not just BLPs, but any articles. Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ethan_Klein#Reddit_controversy

Question: This entire section (and a few of the ones above and below) are all massive BLP vios right?
IP users usings a bunch of subreddit links as evidence to support claims that Ethan Klein is {insert possible blpvio here}. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Definitely. Requesting revdel. jolielover♥talk 02:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Notable?

I stumbled across Tony Campion randomly. To me, it does not seem to contain any credible assertion of passing WP:GNG or any other notability guideline I'm aware of, and two minutes with my search engine didn't turn up anything striking. But I don't spend a lot of time editing biographies, so I thought I would ask for a couple more opinions before I decide to PROD or AfD it. Thoughts? --JBL (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Nothing inherently notable there, and a newspapers.com search doesn't find me anything to change that belief. Original writer hasn't edited in over a decade. I suspect a PROD would do its job. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. PRODed. JFHJr (㊟) 00:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @NatGertler and JFHJr: the same editor created a bunch of similar articles in 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=0&newOnly=1&start=&tagfilter=&target=Boy1jhn&offset=&limit=100) before moving on to other topics, I'll have a look through those as well. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

In 2007, the rules of the road were... different. Feel free to speedy any wholly unreffed, and propose deletion for marginals based on WP:PRIMARY sources and passing mention alone. It's normal for WP to shed articles after changes in standards and lack of development since lower ones. They and their ilk are why the standards were changed. JFHJr (㊟) 03:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Jonathan Swan

Hello, I am currently editing the article on Jonathan Swan, and have made significant edits since neutrality issues were first brought up. After extensive help from Hipal, I would like to gauge other editors' views on whether more work needs to be done. Thanks. DannyRogers800 (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Since it is tagged with a POV tag, it might be better to ask for additional input at WP:NPOVN, unless you think there is some BLP issue(s) that needs to be addressed. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. Thank you! DannyRogers800 (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

HarryWurst

HarryWurst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone check their edits? Seem really problematic at least Brazilian politics–wise. 2804:388:903B:F81A:0:2B:DD25:6F01 (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you but it would be helpful if you provided some WP:DIFFs; have any of their problematic edits gone unreverted? Are there also problems with their moth edits? 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: user behavior discussions generally belong at WP:ANI. But volunteers here will be happy to watch and discuss a BLP article. JFHJr (㊟) 03:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like most of their edits to biographies have been (rightly) reverted but this one has not: [21]. Based on their other BLP edits (and their talk-page rants about leftist censorship) I come to it with skepticism, but I don't read Portuguese and don't know if the source is reliable and (if the source does meet WP:RS and does verify the content) don't have any idea if the content is WP:DUE. So maybe someone else could take a peek. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Nic Vansteenberghe

This article would benefit from additional eyes - personal details are being added repeatedly without reliable sourcing to back them up. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

See also WP:Articles for deletion/Nic Vansteenberghe. JFHJr (㊟) 06:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Josh Gracin article – disputed Personal life section wording and reverts

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am the subject of the article I am raising this issue under WP:BLP. Problem: The "Personal life" section contains wording that misrepresents events, including claims of an involuntary psychiatric hold and a "suicide note," which are not consistently supported by reliable sources. Initial TMZ coverage framed it that way, but subsequent outlets (Billboard, Washington Post, TV Guide, TheWrap, Extra) reported that after discharge I voluntarily checked into a facility. Attempts to correct this with neutral, sourced wording have been repeatedly reverted by a single editor and a bot, often without substantive edit summaries. This has left misleading text in place, in violation of WP:BLP. Concerns: WP:BLP requires that negative or contentious material be well sourced and neutrally presented. The current wording is misleading and not balanced with later reliable coverage. Repeated reverts without discussion may constitute disruptive editing or ownership (see WP:OWN). Request: Admin review of the page history and sources. Guidance on whether the current wording violates WP:BLP. If appropriate, temporary page protection or mediation to stop further disruption. Evidence: Revision history links: [add permalinks from history showing your version and their reverts] Reliable sources: People, Yahoo, Country Music Nation, Billboard, Washington Post, TV Guide, TheWrap, Extra. (I can provide exact <ref> citation code if needed.) To clarify, my concern is with accuracy. The current “Personal life” section includes misleading or incorrect details. I’ve suggested a neutral, timeline-only version supported by citations to reliable sources. This follows BLP guidelines by keeping the article factual and neutral. I ask that editors evaluate the content on its merits rather than making assumptions about how the statement was written. JoshGracin25 (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I am raising this again because editors Children Will Listen and Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four have repeatedly reverted a neutral, timeline-only version of the “Personal life” section and replaced it with language that adds speculation and editorializing. For example, Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four recently reintroduced phrasing from Rolling Stone describing a note as “reading like a suicide note” and TheWrap stating “many perceived [it] as a suicide threat.” This type of wording is speculative and not neutral, it violates WP:BLP by promoting interpretation rather than sticking to verifiable facts.

My version was structured as a simple timeline of events with reliable citations and without embellishment or assumptions. That follows the BLP requirement for accuracy, neutrality, and avoidance of undue weight. By contrast, the reverted versions continue to frame events with speculative descriptors, which directly harms neutrality.

I am asking for admin and community attention to ensure the article reflects a strictly neutral timeline with properly cited sources, and that editors stop re-adding speculative or tabloid-style phrasing to a living person’s biography. JoshGracin25 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I want to note that two editors, ChildrenWillListen and FifteenThousandTwoHundred, have been involved in reverting my edits. ChildrenWillListen has repeatedly reverted my neutral timeline version, which removed speculative language and relied only on reliable sources, while leaving in place speculative additions made by FifteenThousandTwoHundred that included even more interpretive language. This shows inconsistent treatment. My version presented a straightforward, sourced timeline in full compliance with WP:BLP, yet it was reverted while non-neutral edits were allowed to stand. This raises a serious concern because speculative and potentially defamatory content is being protected while a neutral and properly sourced version is being targeted. JoshGracin25 (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

"... FifteenThousandTwoHundred, have been involved in reverting my edits" – I have reverted zero of your edits, I haven't removed a single letter you have added. Here's my one edit which improved sourcing, and attempted to be more accurate and less weasely by using attributed statements about how the note, which ended with "Pray for my family as they carry on in this world without me. Goodbye.", was perceived:

−

Gracin left a goodbye note on his Facebook account interpreted by some media as being a suicide note

+

Gracin left a goodbye note on his Facebook account which ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' described as "[reading] like a suicide note" and ''[[TheWrap]]'' stated "many perceived [it] as a suicide threat"

I've reviewed the paragraph I edited and cannot find any issues with neutrality, the information appears accurate, neutrally worded, and WP:DUE as evident from the breadth of coverage and relevance to the subject. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization. Your edit did more than “replace a few words.” It restored the earlier narrative paragraph and removed the neutral, date-only timeline I had just added. On a living person’s biography, phrases like “reading like a suicide note” and “many perceived it as a suicide threat,” even when attributed, are interpretive and give weight to speculation. The timeline version presents the same events with dates and reliable sources and avoids editorializing, which is what WP:BLP and WP:NPOV require. I am asking that we keep the neutral, sourced timeline pending the BLPN review. If you believe any specific date or citation in the timeline is wrong, please identify which one so it can be corrected rather than reverting to narrative language. JoshGracin25 (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I never said "“replace a few words.”", please stop using an LLM to generate messages on noticeboards and talk pages, they are widely seen as disruptive and may be collapsed per WP:AITALK. Please also refrain from using an LLM to generate edits like this, as this is also disruptive. I will not engage further with model output. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Pinging @ChildrenWillListen and Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: as they are involved in this discussion. Lordseriouspig 09:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a note that despite the unfortunately poor choice in name this is just comments from a fan rather than the subject. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Per their talk page, For the record I am not Josh Gracin. I am a fan that has followed him from the beginning. I was the original owner of Joshgracin.com during his idol days before I voluntarily signed over the website to his first label. While unintentional I'm sure, this is, strictly speaking, a violation of the username policy (it has already misled/confused a few editors), and possibly does imply a minor historical COI. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Abergil crime family – speculative/defamatory content (Hai Waknine)

The article currently includes the sentence:

“His description of loans and extortion practices was expected to help convict Itzhak and Meir Abergil.”

This is sourced only to a 2011 Haaretz article and uses speculative wording (“expected to”), which is not a factual finding. Under WP:BLP, speculation and opinion must not be presented as fact. This sentence is defamatory, harmful, and violates BLP standards.

Direct link to the problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abergil_crime_family#cite_note-21

Request: Please remove or reword this content so that it reflects only verifiable facts (e.g., the plea bargain, sentence, and supervised release) without speculation.

Proposed neutral replacement:

“In January 2011, he signed a plea bargain in the United States, pleading guilty to money laundering. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison (time already served) and an additional three years of supervised release.” Historyedits67 (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes but No. I did remove the crusty old speculation altogether. But I did not disturb the rest of the content otherwise. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Tariq Amin

Tariq Amin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article was changed from a Pakistani hairdresser to a Jordanian business executive without any discussion. Now, the categories and deletion discussions are for one thing and the article for another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatder (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the hijacking, and left a warning on the talk page of the contributor responsible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I've also reverted renaming shenanigans, which I'd not spotted earlier (the article was originally for Tariq Amin, which I've restored). This appears to have been done in order to avoid scrutiny for a new biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes

An editor at Nick Fuentes has been undertaking a massive overhaul of the article that contains a frustrating mix of bromine grammatical fixes and obvious POV pushes. Additional eyes would be appreciated. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I reject the characterization of POV pushes. It is an NPOV push. This is clearly demonstrated by the huge number of WP:RSP violations in the form of unattributed marginal sources that I corrected. Czarking0 (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

[22] Cutting ties to Patrick Casey from the lead. Cutting ties to Donald Trump Jr. from the lead. Adding in "his father is half-Mexican" which has regularly been excluded as irrelevant trivia. Unnecessarily attributing undisputed statements of fact to SPLC as if they were opinions, cut the statement where he said comparing Putin to Hitler was complimentary of Putin, cut the entire deplatforming section, cut the Ali Alexander blockquote. This is a POV push. Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks this is the first time you have given more specific detail. I will address most of these points in more detail on the talk page when I have some more time later. In terms of noticeboard

• "Cutting ties to Patrick Casey from the lead" - Casey is not in the body so that makes sense
• " Donald Trump Jr. from the lead" - will self-rv then discuss on talk
• "his father is half-Mexican" - will self-rv then discuss on talk
• "Unnecessarily attributing undisputed statements of fact to SPLC as if they were opinions" I think my editing here falls under WP:SPLC
• "cut the statement where he said comparing Putin to Hitler was complimentary of Putin" will discuss on talk
• "cut the entire deplatforming section" This has been the article for a long time. I did not add it and there are many well verified claims about in it. This request simply does not make sense to me.
• "cut the Ali Alexander blockquote" - I don't think I have a problem with that, will look into this further then decide what to do.

Czarking0 (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand, it was cuts you made to those last three sections that concerned me. Please do not cut more. Particularly the Putin one. That should have be left in. Generally I'm very concerned you seem to have decided you own the page and everybody must ask you permission to restore anything you've changed. Simonm223 (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you are misunderstanding some of the diffs? I did not cut the deplatforming section it was in the article on my most recent diff. Likewise with the Putin Hitler comparison. I move some things around so maybe it seemed like a cut from particular diffs?

I apologize, I don't know what I said that would lead you to believe that. I welcome contributions from the community to improving this article. Czarking0 (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Catturd

Someone has uploaded a file purportedly depicting the right-wing Twitter shitposter and Internet troll Catturd (also known as Phillip Buchanan). I'm fairly certain that the image is a hoax—the source is simply "Own work". It's already been added to and removed from Buchanan's article at least once. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yann, this looks like a grab from a YouTube video like this one at around 16 seconds. There are other ones but this was the oldest I saw. The provenance of the image is unclear from the YouTube content. It's unlikely to be "own work" here. What do you think? Thanks in advance for any feedback. JFHJr (㊟) 01:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, any thoughts? Non-free, off-license? JFHJr (㊟) 03:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If that one is own work, it's up to the uploader to prove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Clearly not own work, so deleted. Yann (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• I was looking at this article and am wondering why it even exists at all. The sources are generally poor quality (several of the main one do not qualify as RS's) and why, for the love of God, are we using a primary source which includes the subjects home address? Absadah (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Follow-up, are the following sources considered RS's in a biography (note, all are considered "marginally reliable" on the Perennial list) : Vice Media, Media Matters for America, The Daily Dot, Mediaite, Mashable? As the majority of this article's content is sourced to these, I think it might be best just to delete it. Absadah (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Project Pat

On the talk page of this biographical article, there is a user claiming to be the subject's manager requesting the addition of content about personal details. One of the sources presented is a primary source that I'm not totally sure meets WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:DUE, while the other two, which are secondary sources, seem questionable for use on a BLP. I am requesting here that another editor take a look at these sources, and assess whether or not they meet the criteria of BLP. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I commented on the TP. Basically, the manager wants to mention marriage and name the spouse. I think a Tweet or the like would be far better than the garbage links proposed by the manager. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Nina Jankowicz (2)

I recently removed an assertion that Nina Jankowicz resigned from the short-lived Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) following "widespread public criticism". This omits necessary context and is not directly supported by the majority of relevant sources, which say criticism of Jankowicz herself mostly came from right-wing media and politicians spreading falsehoods about her role in the government. Some examples:

[Jankowicz] became the target of a sustained disinformation campaign herself. Right-wing trolls on the internet waged continuous attacks ... Prominent Republicans and Fox News, mining conservative perceptions of leftist bias in tech, derisively dubbed the board a 'ministry of truth.'
— Time

The creation of a board, announced last week, has turned into a partisan fight over disinformation itself ... Within hours of the announcement, Republican lawmakers began railing against the board ...
— The New York Times

[Jankowicz] resigned Wednesday after the program was paused amid criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill ... Jankowicz and the board faced backlash from congressional Republicans, who alleged it would be used as a tool by Democrats to stifle free speech.
— NBC News

Jankowicz's appointment quickly drew condemnation from GOP lawmakers and right-wing media ...
— CNN

Jankowicz, 33, is now finding that Republican lawmakers are scrutinizing her previous comments and social media posts for signs of partisanship.
— CBS News

Conservative pundits and social media users pushed conspiracy theories ... Others put out false claims that Jankowicz planned to edit the tweets of everyday Twitter users.
— Associated Press

A bevy of Republicans ... questioned the fitness of the board’s executive director, Nina Jankowicz ... Geraghty argued, along with others on the right, that Jankowicz’s inclusion in the effort was a red flag.
— The Washington Post (1)

[Jankowicz] became a primary target on the right-wing Internet. She has been subject to an unrelenting barrage of harassment and abuse while unchecked misrepresentations of her work continue to go viral.
— The Washington Post (2)

[Jankowicz's] stint heading the Biden administration’s Disinformation Governance Board lasted a few weeks last spring before the board itself was dissolved by the administration following an outcry by GOP lawmakers ...
— Politico

I had previously added a summary along these lines to the lead section, which was reverted by another user here.

Several sources acknowledge legitimate criticism of the DGB, which should not be conflated with criticism of Jankowicz herself.

Finally, while there was some criticism of Jankowicz from a few left-leaning outlets such as FAIR, these are primary opinion sources. Labeling this as "widespread" criticism is original research and enables an ongoing partisan smear campaign against a living person. Some additional eyeballs here would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

A view among a group that includes "prominent Republicans," "Fox News," "congressional Republicans," "GOP lawmakers" more broadly, the "right-wing media," "conservative pundits and social media users," "a bevy of Republicans," "others on the right," and "the right-wing internet" can safely be described as widespread. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Great, then it should be easy to find several quality, mainstream sources calling it widespread. Anything less is original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:CALC: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." The number of conservative social media users, considered alone, easily runs into millions of people. Calling this widespread is fine. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation of "widespread" requires the criticism to extend beyond a single group, even if that is a very large group. -- Reconrabbit 18:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

A view held by a very large group is widespread. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

How are you assessing what counts as a "single group"? For example, do you consider {right-wing trolls} U {conservative social media users} U {"others on the right"} to be three groups, or do you consider their union to be a subset of {the right-wing internet} and therefore a single group? Do you consider {right wing pundits} U {Fox News} to be two groups or a subset of {right-wing media} and therefore a single group? Do you {GOP lawmakers} U {prominent Republicans} to be two groups or a subset of {a bevy of Republicans} and therefore one group? One can always create one group that contains specific subsets. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I was oversimplifying and I recognize my mistake here. As Sangdebouef is saying, and as I agree (if I am interpreting this right): "resigned due to widespread criticism", the removed assertion, is not equivalent to "resigned due to criticism from right-wing media, conservative pundits and social media users, a bevy of Republicans, others on the right, and the right-wing internet". -- Reconrabbit 19:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I respect your use of set notation. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes so we mention a grouping which best encompasses what reliable sources have said. It's clear that this group is something akin to "widespread criticism from the right" or similar rather than point blank "widespread criticism" since sources talking about this criticism include various subgroups on the right but notable do not include those on the left or even in the middle. It would be misleading to summarise the criticism she received as simply widespread, since RS present a gaping chasm in who criticised her. Nil Einne (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

"Widespread criticism from the right" seems more accurate than "widespread criticism". Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:CALC is about mathematical calculations, not characterizations of criticisms of living people. It is certainly not applicable here. Elestrophe (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

CALC refers to "routine calculations." Unless you disagree that the persons under consideration are numerous, it applies. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The phrase widespread public criticism is neither routine nor the result of a calculation. If you have somehow managed to mathematically calculate it, then please show your work. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The observation that the total number of persons whom you listed here is numerous is entirely routine. Unless you claim that they are not numerous, then the details of the calculation don't matter. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Neither I nor the quoted sources say anything about the actual number of persons. Numerous is your interpretation; it is not the result of any calculation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

That a group including the "right-wing media," "conservative pundits and social media users," "a bevy of Republicans," and "the right-wing internet" is numerous is not merely my interpretation. Bevy means "a large group of people or things of a particular kind." Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a large group of Republicans. Not the public at large. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

37% of Americans describe themselves as conservative, so roughly a hundred million people. Since 25% identify as liberal, conservatives more represent the public at large than the liberals. A lot of Republicans is a lot of people, and a view held among them is widespread. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Once again, that is your interpretation. It is not a verifiable summary of the actual text of published, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Once again, the fact that the persons described are numerous is not my interpretation and summarizing a view among them as widespread is acceptable per MOS:LEAD. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD does not outweigh policies like WP:NOR. Just repeating yourself that there were "numerous" persons is not enough. You have to verify each statement with a source that makes that statement explicitly. That applies to the lead as much as the rest of the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

They're not numerous because I'm repeating that they're numerous; they're simply numerous, as per your sources. Ascertaining that number is not original research as per WP:CALC, and calling a view among them widespread is acceptable per MOS:LEAD. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Please quote the published, reliable sources saying there were "numerous" critics of Jankowicz. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You already did it for me. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

This argument is original research, and even if it were supported by reliable sources, using it to support your characterization would be WP:SYNTH. Elestrophe (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Routine calculations do not count as original research and the characterization is an acceptable as a summary as per MOS:LEAD. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

This is all starting to get very silly. It's already been explained to you once that WP:CALC applies to articles about math, not to determining whether something couns as "numerous" per RS. This is also looking like a WP:1AM situation. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to "articles about math," it applies to "routine calculations." I won't discuss the behavior of other editors. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Responsible critics had a substantive complaint about Jankowicz with respect to the Disinformation Governance Board: she had pushed the false narrative of the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian election interference, and as such was not qualified or sufficiently disinterested to decide what constituted "disinformation." "Jankowicz repeatedly made public statements indicating that she held this view, too. She shared national security officials' "high confidence" that the Hunter Biden story was part of a Russian influence campaign. She described the idea that the laptop had been left behind at a repair shop as "a fairy tale." This was a critical test of whether disinformation experts could check their innate tendency to ascribe everything unfavorable to the Democratic Party as Russian nefariousness, and they utterly failed. Jankowicz failed as well."--Reason That they were "spreading falsehoods about her role in the government" elides the problem that bears mentioning in the article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The groups described are a fairly limited subset of 'widespread'. The Reason article linked is pretty speculative and connects the resignation to specifically these criticisms (from "right-wing "coordinated online attacks""), which I would say disproves this being widespread criticism. -- Reconrabbit 18:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I addressed the "widespread" objection above. This point was regarding the notion that various conservatives were "spreading falsehoods about her role in the government." That fails to deal with the substantiative criticism that bears on the article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If sources criticising her are all coming from one direction and this is something many RS summarising the situation have mentioned, our article should mention this whatever that direction is rather than just summarising it as widespread. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

As noted here, the criticism was not all coming from one direction. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

That says it was. What am I missing? Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

"Finally, while there was some criticism of Jankowicz from a few left-leaning outlets such as FAIR, these are primary opinion sources." Which it to say that it exists, but the nominator has found a reason to discount it. Reason is a libertarian publication, not a conservative one. The Nation is partisan left, and they criticized the Jankowicz appointment as well. The correct descriptor for the view that the Jankowicz appointment was concerning is widespread. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It was widespread on the right. It was not widespread on the left. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It also was not widespread among Kurdish separatists, guqin players, or Maasai cattle ranchers. But in the context of American politics, it included vast swaths of the right and civil libertarians across partisan divides, handily millions of people. In other words, widespread, tendentious contextualization notwithstanding. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

If you have an RS that supports "it included vast swaths of ... civil libertarians across partisan divides," please present it. Otherwise it's WP:OR, which you can discuss here, but cannot be added to the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Meant to be read: civil libertarians across partisan divides, and vast swaths of the right. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You're still arguing that there are two sets where there is widespread criticism of her: (1) those on the right (for which we have RSs), and (2) civil libertarians across partisan divides (for which you have not presented RSs). (2) may be true, but being true isn't sufficient for adding content to an article. Unless you can present RSs saying so, it's OR. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I have already presented RSs in the form of Reason and The Nation elsewhere in this discussion. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see where either of those sources comments on "civil libertarians across partisan divides" as a group. Please quote what you're referring to. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Under discussion is the wording of a lead. Summaries are acceptable in leads as per MOS:LEAD. Inclusion of those items in the article would make widespread a reasonable summary of the criticism. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

That can be arranged. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Reason is not a particularly reliable source for discussing the actions of civil libertarians "across partisan divides" as Reason rather exclusively speaks with the voice of hard-right "libertarians". Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

That isn't correct, see WP:REASONMAGAZINE and About Reason.Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The linked entry states that "Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight". The partiality of the article would make it at least partially the opinion of Robby Soave. -- Reconrabbit 13:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Most articles in the news cycle are at least partially the opinions of their authors. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a difference between news outlets with strong editorial oversight and opinion pieces where the author is free to sound off. The Reason piece by Robby Soave is one of the latter. Any published piece of media saying things like they utterly failed is essentially an opinion piece. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I would frankly like to reopen WP:REASONNEWS - they blend news and opinion far too much for WP:GREL status. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The same could be said of the sources cited by the nominator. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I really love it when arguments are such vague innuendo that I don't even know what sources they're referring to. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I second the concerns about WP:REASONNEWS and would like to see a new discussion about it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Those distinctions have no bearing on the wording of the lead of this article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment about most articles in the news cycle. If journalist's opinions have no bearing here, then why are we talking about them? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You tell me. What about Soave's reporting is unreliable, and how does it bear on the lead of the article? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not interested in his reporting. I was disputing your characterization of WP:GREL news sources like the ones I quoted above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Then you're off-topic with respect to this discussion and there's no need to consider that dispute any further. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source saying Jankowicz was criticized by millions of people or even vast swaths of the right, please present it here. Otherwise this is an interpretive statement not supported by sources.

The Nation is a primary source for its own criticism of Jankowicz. Wikipedia articles rely instead on reliable, secondary sources. This is essential regarding criticism of living people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I already pointed out that your sources describe millions of people and counting is not WP:OR. All sources are primary with respect to their own reporting. If The Nation is not usable for the reason you cite, then we should throw away the whole encyclopedia. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Millions of people is your own interpretation. Even if it were true, we would need a published RS that explicitly supports this interpretation per WP:V and WP:NOR.

We are talking specifically about criticism by left-leaning outlets such as The Nation, not just reporting. If we are going to label something as "criticism", we need a reliable, secondary source documenting said criticism. Otherwise BLPs would just become an indiscriminate collection of hot takes, which is definitely not good encyclopedia writing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

"Even if it were true, we would need a published RS that explicitly supports this interpretation per WP:V and WP:NOR." That's not correct. We're discussing the wording of a lead. Summaries are expected in leads as per MOS:LEAD. Reporting can be critical, as is evidenced by your original examples. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I would say that an allegation of "widespread criticism" is certainly significant.

MOS:LEAD does not justify ignoring core content policies. Original research means to state or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by reliable sources, end of story. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Widespread criticism is an acceptable summary for the criticism covered in the remainder of the article as per MOS:LEAD. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Disagree, for the reasons already stated by others and myself. Unless published, reliable sources explicitly say criticism was widespread (using that or equivalent phrasing), such an allegation would be an WP:ATTACK, i.e. biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced, and therefore prohibited by policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You have referred to a policy summarized as, "Do not create pages which serve no purpose beyond disparaging or threatening their subjects, or biographical articles which are unsourced and entirely negative in tone." It does not apply to the wording of this lead. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I quoted the policy directly. It definitely applies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

No one is creating a page which serves no purpose beyond disparaging or threatening its subject in this instance. It does not apply here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I never said that was the purpose. You are ignoring the actual text of WP:ATTACK which I quoted above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The actual text is a neutral observation and WP:ATTACK does not apply to it in any fashion. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

(COI: I know Jankowicz personally)

The Reason article does not constitute a substantive complaint about Jankowicz:

1. Its basis is claims about her past statements about the Hunter Biden laptop, but these claims are largely inaccurate and have been disputed by her (see bottom)
2. The Disinformation Governance Board's purview did not involve deciding what constituted "disinformation"

Tentchair (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

That was gracious of Reason to print her contentions, but her remarks on the record contradict them. Per the document linked in your second point, the first stated purpose of the DGB was "Identifying MDM," the board's shorthand for mis-, dis-, and malinformation. Since the definition of disinformation is "false information that is intended to mislead," its identification would have hinged on scrutiny of intentions and thus consist of value judgments, hence decisions. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

That 2025 remark of hers is a factual observation about the intelligence officials' letter, not an endorsement of it. It doesn't retroactively support faulty claims by Reason or others that she labeled the laptop as Russian disinformation, which she never did.

While DHS' work "already underway" prior to the Disinformation Governance Board did include "identifying MDM", the next paragraph of the charter lays out that the Board's role was merely to "develop and support the implementation of governance policies and protocols" for that work. As the document makes clear, Jankowicz and the Board were not adjudicating truth or labeling speech as disinformation.

Bringing it back to the context of this discussion, while it is certainly true that many have criticized Jankowicz personally, criticism based on false and misleading coverage of a few statements she made about a news story in 2020 amount to more of an "ongoing partisan smear campaign against a living person" than "substantive complaint" or "legitimate criticism". Tentchair (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

"Factual" is a not a convincing way to describe her concurrence with the former intelligence officials' specious analysis, particularly given that said analysis was falsified and she further characterized the laptop as a Trump campaign product. To "develop and support the implementation of governance policies and protocols" could have easily empowered Jankowicz to help set up a censorship regime. Unlike the speculation about the laptop, suspicions about the burgeoning censorship regime turned out to be true. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This is all very fascinating, but we are not here to decide whether intelligence officials' analysis was specious, whether Jankowicz could have easily set up a censorship regime, or even whether critics had a substantive complaint about Jankowicz. That is for published, reliable sources to determine; we merely summarize what reliable sources say. (Mark Zuckerberg is not a reliable source either.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

That's correct, this is not an appropriate discussion for someone who knows Jankowicz personally to make claims about her supposed blamelessness. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

No one is saying Jankowicz is blameless. However, using Wikipedia to "set the record straight" about someone you apparently see as a villain is not appropriate either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not the case here. The purpose of the discussion is to address the wording of the lead. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction. Please quote two statements from her that you believe are contradictory (full quotes please, not just phrases, along with an identification of the source of the quote, so I can look it up and see it in fuller context if I want). Also, the Daily Caller is not a reliable source (see WP:DAILYCALLER).

I disagree that scrutiny of intentions necessarily involves value judgments (judgments, yes, but not all judgments are value judgments). There are only a few categories of false statements: purposefully false (most often as a lie: a knowingly false statement said with intent to deceive; sometimes in some other category, such as a joke or the initial false statement in a proof by contradiction, where it's knowingly false but there is no intent to deceive), mistakes (false, but not with an intent to decieve), delusions (the person can't distinguish between actual and imagined), disinterest in the truth (the person doesn't care whether something is true or false and sometimes says things that are false). Maybe there are some other categories, but those are the ones that come to mind. There are also true statements that are misleading, as with half-truths, where the person knowingly omits key info. For me, distinguishing among these things relies on factual info (e.g., is the person known to make a lot of false statements? is the person in a good position to know the truth if they want to know it? how does the person act when they learn it's false: do they apologize or thank the person for the correction? do they keep it in mind in the future? etc.). FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be getting off-topic. It's not up to us to decide whether Jankowicz's statements were contradictory nor whether there were value judgments inherent in the DGB's purpose. We're simply here to document what reliable secondary sources have said about Jankowicz and here role in the DGB. So far, what we see to have from sources is that she resigned following criticism (or widespread criticism) of her role from those on the right. So that's what we can say. We lack sources supporting widespread criticism point blank. Whether this criticism was fair, the left and middle were wrong to not also criticise her etc is not for us to decide. Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

We can also say that she resigned after the DGB was paused, despite an offer of another government position of unknown length (I'm relying on memory of what I've read, I don't have RSs at hand for it). We have sources to support that there was widespread criticism on the right. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes I don't see a problem with mentioning there was widespread criticism on the right. The problem is with presenting it as widespread criticism point blank since that doesn't seem to be supported by the sources (or at least the quotes) presented thus far. Nil Einne (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Widespread criticism on the right seems like a bit of a garden path phrase; starting off with "widespread criticism" plants an idea in the reader's mind of, well, widespread criticism, before they get to the qualifier "on the right". I prefer my original wording "criticism from conservative politicians and media outlets" (which Jankowicz said had led to online harassment and threats to her personal safety). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC) edited 13:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I think "Widespread criticism on the right" is better than "widespread criticism" with no qualifiers but I think "criticism from the right" would be better still. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Most of the sources seems to emphasize the idea that it was criticism from the right; nothing seems to really describe or characterize it as widespread in any context. So "criticism from the right" is probably the best way to approach it. --Aquillion (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Kevin Cronin

Kevin Cronin has 3 children with his current wife: Holly, Josh and Shane. He has another son with someone else, but not sure of his name or the mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:9377:E300:3D4B:4973:A3FC:64B4 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

That's wonderful. Please provide a reliable source for the information and someone will be happy to add it. JFHJr (㊟) 22:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Ian Roberts (educator)

In 2013, Roberts earned George Washington University’s Washington D.C. Principal of the Year award. There isn't a "George Washington University Principal of the Year Award"

George Washington University is a higher education institution that may participate in national or state-level Principal of the Year programs, such as those administered by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). These programs recognize outstanding school leaders, and winning state-level awards can lead to national recognition for eligible principals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.241.84 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The claim is cited to Time, which explicitly corroborates it. Take it up with the source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Roberts’s official bio from his current employer, Des Moines Public Schools, states, “While in the nation’s capital he was named the George Washington University’s 2013 Washington D.C. Principal of the Year.” I have searched and searched and cannot find any record of this award. Nor can I find a record of George Washington University giving out a “Principal of the Year” award to anyone, ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.241.84 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Gimme a second to see when the claim was put into the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This can and should be brought up on the article talkpage before escalating here. See also how to handle a textual challenge. JFHJr (㊟) 23:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the timestamp of when that claim was put into the article, it predates Time's reporting. I'm not sure if it predates the school district's. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It may predate the specific Time source used, but it's a day after the Associated Press reported that award, which shows up in many locations on that basis. It is not citogenesis. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Journalists will repeat stuff without checking all the time, so "a journalist wrote it in a news story" does not make it ironclad fact. The Washington Post indeed does have a "Washington D.C. Principal of the year award" [23], but I wasn't able to find Roberts there either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

A source which going by WHO-DT is probably an RS, have noted that they too were unable to verify the claim [24] Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a pretty significant escalation after you came into the article, broke a fair bit of it with contentious editing that had to be reverted, then ran straight here rather than discuss your edits on the article's talk page. There are better ways to approach changes you want in an article. --Rosicrucian^Talk 02:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Seeking editor opinions on 'sex offender' and 'conviction' in RJ May article

• WP:DR#RfCs - I am seeking the opinion of other editors, particularly those with research interest in courtroom procedure and law, on the RJ May article. I have performed several undos with @Quetstar @Amniana and @Marquardtika who put in the opening paragraph that May is a sex offender. Find the undo's here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RJ_May&action=history My question can be answered by resolving this issue: does a defendant pleading guilty to a crime equal a conviction, for the purposes of what we describe in wikipedia articles? I say that although May pled guilty on September 29th, the judge will not rule on the matter and do sentencing until January. So does calling May a sex offender in the article at this stage mislead readers on the law? Here is a definition I found on AI: A sex offender is generally defined as someone convicted of a sex offense, which is a crime involving sexual acts against another person, often without consent. The specific offenses that classify someone as a sex offender vary by jurisdiction, but they typically include crimes like rape, sexual assault, child molestation, or possession of child pornography. After a conviction, individuals may be required to register with a sex offender registry and face restrictions, which are often tiered based on the severity of the offense. Thanks for the feedback! I won't perform any more undoes on this issue - if there is consensus, others may do the honors

ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

A related issue came up before with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive367#Michael Flynn. The judgement on Arpaio I highlighted there is IMO particularly relevant so I'll repeat it here

Although President Trump pardoned Arpaio for his “conviction” for criminal contempt, Arpaio was never technically “convicted” of anything. Colloquially, we use the term “convicted” to describe when an individual has been found guilty of a crime. See, e.g., Richard Perez-Pena, Former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is Convicted of Criminal Contempt, N.Y. Times (July 31, 2017); Colin Dwyer, Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio Convicted of Criminal Contempt, NPR (July 31, 2017). Legally, though, using the term in this way is imprecise because there is a technical difference between a “conviction” and a “judgment of conviction.” Arpaio suffered a “conviction,” but not a “judgment of conviction, ”which does not occur until sentence is imposed. See United States v. Smith, 623 F.2d 627, 630(9th Cir. 1980). Admittedly, we have not always used these terms with precision. But in this case, precision is important. Accordingly, we will not refer to the order for which Arpaio seeks vacatur as a “conviction,” but will instead refer to it as the “verdict” or “finding of guilt.”

So it's true by some technical definitions it's complicated whether the person was convicted after the verdict/finding of guilt/guilty plea but before sentencing. However even this text reflects the fact that most commonly people are said to be convicted after the verdict/finding of guilt/guilty plea even if sentencing hasn't yet happened.

Generally this technical distinction doesn't matter much because sentencing will happen. The only time it matters a lot is when the person is pardoned or perhaps dies after the verdict/whatever but before sentencing. I guess it might technically be possible for the guilty verdict to be overturned before sentencing too. (In some jurisdictions it's possible for a person to be discharged without conviction after a guilty verdict/whatever.) But the technical definition aside, for better or worse we seem to go by the more common use of term and so Joe Arpaio says he was "convicted of criminal contempt of court" no matter that he was pardoned before sentencing.

As I mentioned in the Michael Flynn discussion, there's the interesting fact that under some technical definitions, if a guilty verdict is overturned perhaps even years later, the conviction never happened. However to simply say the person was never convicted is oversimplifying IMO, otherwise the term "wrongful conviction" makes no sense and the person may have spent years in prison on this wrongful conviction.

IMO the bigger issue is whether it's helpful to just say convicted sex offender in the lead sentence. While we used to do this a lot with that and other crimes there's IMO been a move away from it especially then the offender is well known for something other than their crime. Instead we simply briefly describe the crimes they were convicted of later in the lead. In a case like this, we would go further and say he pled guilty and not use "convicted" at all.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

According to [25]("U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie told May that by pleading guilty he will have to register as a public sex offender"), he committed a sexual crime, went to court, pled guilty, and will soon register as a sex offender. I think in a colloquial sense we can refer to him as a sex offender, even if in a technical legal sense he is not yet registered as one. "Sex offender" may be a term of art with various meanings under different state laws, but it also has a regular meaning through common usage which May undoubtedly does meet. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BTW, in case this is also part of the confusion, whether he's required to register as a sex offender doesn't IMO impact whether he's a convicted sex offender. He's a convicted sex offender even if he isn't required to register as a sex offender. We shouldn't say he's a registered sex offender but it's fine to say he's a convicted sex offender. Even if you wait for sentencing and he isn't required to register, he will still be a convicted sex offender even going by a stricter definition of conviction. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe "sex offender" is an accurate term for May (what he is primarily known for at this point). He was charged with and pled guilty to multiple counts of distributing child sex abuse material. Whether he was convicted is immaterial (he didn't have to be, as he pled guilty), and the fact that he hasn't been sentenced yet also has no bearing. I see no WP:BLP implications here as he admitted guilt. Marquardtika (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Categorization of BLP Nupur Sharma

• Article name Nupur Sharma
• Doubtful catgorization: this edit by @PShaikh03.
• WP:BLPREMOVE says Editors...potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at this notice board.
• I have not reverted this edit yet since personally I have not followed Person of the BLP topic for many months. But I did not find any specific mentions in the article which would validate those categories as of the day.
• Usually I do not get into category issues hence not well versed with categorisation practices. I am not sure what is the basis by usual expected Wikipedia standards how appropriate such categorisation would be for a contentious BLP.

Requesting experienced users to guide in this respect. Bookku (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of these categories. The categories added are not typically used to categorize individuals and more accurately describe events, organizations or publications. "Incitement to genocide of Muslims" is not an immediately apparent defining characteristic of the subject. -- Reconrabbit 12:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Imran Khan article have a "Controversy" section?

A Request for Comment has been opened at Talk:Imran Khan#RfC:_Should_the_article_have_a_Controversy_section to discuss whether the Imran Khan article should include a dedicated "Controversy" section. Because controversies and their handling are often sensitive and subject to misinterpretation, more editor participation is encouraged to reach a balanced and well-reasoned outcome.

👉 Talk:Imran Khan#RfC:_Should_the_article_have_a_Controversy_section - Nemov (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Promise Mthembu- information on the page is personal information that has lead to harm to myself -promise as it violates my privacy and dignity. Kindly delete the whole page- entry.

Promise Mthembu- information on the page is personal information that has lead to harm to myself -promise as it violates my privacy and dignity. Kindly delete the whole page- entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.157.208.106 (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

For reference, the article is Promise Mthembu. I personally don't see any privacy violating info or anything that would reasonably cause distress. Perhaps the article creator @Bookworm-ce: has some insight? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Hemiauchenia! I created the article 4+ years ago as part of a Women in Red event — I think she was included on one of the redlists there. All of the information included the article is public information from trustworthy sources, in particular Mthembu's entry in the Dictionary of African Biography, as well as the subject's own writing.

I do understand why some of that information may feel personal to the subject, such as her HIV status, pregnancies, forced sterilization, etc. However, that information is in the public record and is the basis for her activist career, so it seemed relevant to the bio when I wrote it. The subject of the article has seemingly made edits over the years to wipe the existing bio and replace it with what would appear to be an official bio (as in this edit) or to remove the more personal portions (as in this edit), which have been reverted by various editors.

I do respect the possibility that the inclusion of these difficult experiences in her Wikipedia bio could be upsetting to the subject, but, as I said, it's the basis for her work/notability, and it's what distinguishes a wikipedia biography from an official bio/resume. I'm not really sure how best to handle. I am tempted to reduce the proportion of the article that discusses her personal life while trying to maintain the clear connection between her experiences and her activism, but it's tricky. I'd appreciate thoughts from you and other experienced editors on how to handle this as a BLP. Thank you! Bookworm-ce (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do here would be to open a deletion discussion. I have just done so, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promise Mthembu. I would like to emphasise that I don't think you did anything wrong by creating this article. Your weren't publicising anything that hadn't already been written in news sources, but it's best to see if people think the article is worth keeping given that it is apparently causing the subject distress. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you! Bookworm-ce (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

John Doyle (YouTube host) - page continues to include potentially libelous label for article subject despite problematic sourcing and talk page consensus to the contrary

The article John Doyle (YouTube host) has text claiming that John Doyle is a "white nationalist" which is an inflammatory and potentially libelous claim to make. The Talk Page makes clear that sourcing for that claim is dubious, that the claim violates WP:BLP, and furthermore, does not follow Wikipedia style because it does not assert that he "has been referred to" as a white nationalist, but rather makes the claim as a point of fact.

The Talk Page has achieved consensus on the fact that this label obviously must be removed in accordance with WP:BLP. Despite this, editors have been continually re-inserting the label in contravention of Wikipedia policy and without discussing it on the Talk Page. Please remove this label and prevent it from being added back.

D.wright01 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• It would probably be a good idea for some veteran editors to take a look at the article. D.wright01 is hovering around 50 edits; another editor who removed the text today has 4 edits last I looked. My other concern is, if the sources that D.wright01 wants removed are removed, we start to slide below the standard of WP:GNG, and the article may need to be deleted outright. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  C.Fred - please note that I did not attempt to remove any of the sources. I noticed that some of the references had been messed up. This was not done by me. It is true that I have concerns about the reliability of some of the references in the article, but many are valid and I have not taken any issue with them.

  It is a decision above my pay grade as to whether or not the article meets notability. However, I will note the page has been reviewed and was not taken down upon initial review, suggesting notability.

  My #1 concern has always been that the "white nationalist" label is problematic and violates Wikipedia policy. Current policy dictates its immediate removal. Furthermore, you are deleting my references about the subject sourced from the New York Times. The fact that references to a gold standard source for Wikipedia citations are being removed suggests to me that the intent with these edits is not to create the highest quality article possible. I would request that you engage on the article's Talk Page, considering that consensus has so far been achieved, and there has been zero pushback to my suggestions. Thanks!

  D.wright01 (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Can you clarify whether you have previously edited under a different account? You seem remarkably certain of Wikipedia policy, for someone who seems to have had so little experience. As for 'consensus' on the talk page, that is a nonsensical claim to make, given the limited discussion that has taken place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Andy: I say that consensus has been reached because multiple editors have agreed as to the proper course of action. Furthermore, there has yet to be a single addition to the Talk Page that was contradictory to the consensus. Not a single one since the creation of the article. Regarding policy, this isn't something that is ambiguous. WP:BLP explicitly says that content like this should be removed immediately. It's straightforward. D.wright01 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  WP:BLP policy says nothing of the sort. Not when the subject has described himself as a 'white nationalist', and we have multiple sources saying the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Andy, I must object to this comment. Accusing editors of having previous accounts simply because they are familiar with our policies, instead of simply assuming good faith that they read some policy pages before starting to edit, is definitely an aspersion and I would appreciate it if you refrained from making comments like that in the future. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  @D.wright01 I did not see addition of sources—or, at least, the additions were masked by the breaking of references. On closer inspection, you mention that Doyle was mentioned in the article, but not his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Fred, I genuinely don't understand what you're saying here. I think that Doyle's inclusion in the NYT is worthy of mention. I haven't attempted to remove any other sources. I also never objected or attempted to remove the 2020 election reference. Can you explain what your concern is here? Thanks!

  D.wright01 (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Underneath the linked "PatriotTakes" X post used by the various "reputable sources" is a screenshot from Doyle's own instagram story where he refutes the label and the clip: https://x.com/RealTXPolitics/status/1517556463836798976

  Is it not BLP policy to defer in good-faith to Doyle's own words? LoneStarBoomer (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, of course not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Here he is calling himself a white nationalist. This clip was linked in one of the articles that is footnoted on “white nationalist”. Doesn’t this imply he himself is okay with the label?

https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1517480098101796864 173.177.179.61 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yup. There is nothing remotely 'libellous' about agreeing with someone's self-description over this, and citing further sources which agree. I would suggest that D.wright01 stops wasting peoples time over this, and finds something useful to do instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

And another SPA has just joined the article's talk page. Since D.wright01 acknowledged that this is in the area of a contentious topic, I'm wondering how long before WP:CTOPS is invoked by an administrator and the article gets extended-protected. —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

A sockpuppet investigation might be revealing too. If the sudden influx of new accounts isn't socking, it is clearly the result of external canvassing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

No, you can clearly hear laughter in response to his remark. So we cannot tell from this snippet whether it was serious or not. Further: “You might also encounter ‘yours truly’ outside the context of a letter or email. The phrase is often used in a facetious way to refer to oneself….It’s considered quite informal and almost never used in a serious context.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Is this person even notable? The sourcing is not great... The Daily Kos should not be used anywhere, especially a BLP, and using Salon so much on a contentious BLP is also not great. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Some of the other sources look like sigcov but they also don't seem to be great outlets. White nationalist is unobjectionable to include as a descriptor, but this article is really not great. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing. If an article exists about this person it should definitely identify him as a white nationalist since that seems to be the main notable thing about him. The question is whether he meets WP:GNG. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

'This person is notable but we can't say why' would certainly seem an odd position to take regarding a biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

It would ultimately violate WP:NPOV by normalizing the politics of someone who clearly has extreme politics. Should we also call Haz Al Din a social democrat? Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Holy shit, are we really okay with citing an option piece by a former editorial intern for The Progressive and now works with the magazine as a proofreader. She is currently interning at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and is based in Brooklyn. and two advocacy organizations to provide an unattributed label that someone is a white nationalist? Or WP:SALON.COM, There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. and WP:DAILYKOS, There is consensus that Daily Kos should generally be avoided as a source, especially for controversial political topics where better sources are available. As an activism blog that publishes user-generated content with a progressive point of view, many editors consider Daily Kos to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion. These are the high quality sources that meet the threshold for contentious BLP material?
Jesus christ, the BLP policy applies to everyone. If the only sources you can find that say something are bad and biased don't include it. If the only sources about someone are bad and biased why do we even have an article, other than to dunk on them?
I've removed the obvious BLP violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with SFR. I wasn't going to remove it myself, but I definitely won't add it back again. Those sources are not good enough and I realized that shortly after my one revert. That content never should have been there if nobody can find a source for it that isn't an advocacy organization. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Having looked for better sources, the best I could find was WP:SPLC (already used in the article), which describes Doyle as far right and associated with white nationalist figures. So if SPLC, a reliable but biased source, doesn't describe Doyle as a white nationalist but instead far-right, that should tell you everything you need to know. CNC (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Then put up an AfD. Because I honestly think this article, as it stands, is worse than nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually I did it myself. [26] Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I've just come across this and I want to understand, does our assessment of whether he's notable or not hinge on a twitter post in which they called themselves a white nationalist and the subsequent coverage of that? If the answer to that is yes, we probably have a WP:BLP1E situation. TarnishedPath^talk 13:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You can't manufacture notability from a bunch of unreliable sources and activist groups opposed to them. If this is all we have then we shouldn't have an article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Without doing a deep dive into the sources which are left, having read the article and taking what it says at face value, I can't see how they are notable. TarnishedPath^talk 14:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)