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.

Sydney Sweeney

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

I have done two actions:

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

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

Did I really spell due as do? Oh, well... Peaceray (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ricky Hatton

This is an inquiry about how to list the date of death of a recently deceased person in the infobox. The person is Ricky Hatton, and is the topic of a discussion at DRN, and I think that the editors here may be able to provide guidance. Hatton was found dead on 14 September 2025, after having been last seen on 12 September 2025. There has not yet been a final report from the coroner, which might specify the time of death. One editor wants to enter "14 September 2025", and another editor wants to enter "c. 14 September 2025" or "September 2025". What is the opinion of experienced uninvolved editors here? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The information you've described appears to support "12–14 September 2025" or just "September 2025" but not a specific date since we simply don't know yet. A WP:PRIMARY coroner report would be well suited to clarify what we simply don't know yet, and better would be secondary reporting on the coroner report. I think the best answer is to give it time and patience, which is unsatisfying for a dispute in that it provides no immediate closure. But it's still the best answer. JFHJr (㊟) 21:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your verdict. There is much that is still unknown and the conjecture that surrounds the unknown date of death is unseemly. Why an unnecessary appeal was launched and allowed to continue is puzzling for two reasons.

1. A Death Certificate does not appear to have been issued.

2. The Coroners Court Inquest has been adjourned pending results/tests/reports into Hatton's death.

Eventually the Senior Coroner will arrive at one decision or another, that will assist editors. Trying to second guess the outcome of the Coroners view, based on hard evidence that we have no access to, is fruitless.

We need a little patience. Dotsdomain (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 September 2025, Ricky Hatton was found deceased, with the reporting from the media writing it noting this as such. It was noted Hatton had been found, and that last contact with him was on 12 September. On 26 September, the BBC reported on his funeral procession, providing in it the funeral notice from the funeral directors giving a death date of 14 September. Editors have taken issue with this, with feelings around the notice only using the date he was found and not being based on a determined DOD and feelings that funeral home notices fall under self published source territory. In the week of October 13, the Southport Coroners Court published their inquest schedule, with Hatton's occurring on the 16th. In this inquest filing, the Coroners Court cited 14 September as the DOD. However, prior to this thread being opened, the link to the coroner court filings went dead, so it is no longer usable in this discussion. That being said, I feel the funeral notice cited through the BBC article doesn't meet the issues raised against it:

"Feelings around the notice only using the date he was found and not being based on a determined DOD" stems from editors noting that it isn't uncommon for a burial certificate to not include a death date, and that it's possible this was the case here. This to me is WP:OR, there is no evidence that this is the case for Hatton.

"Feelings that funeral notices fall under self published territory" I edit at the Deaths in 2025 page regularly as well as on various bio articles of people who were listed on the article, and obituaries/funeral notices have always been considered welcome as a citation, especially to utilize when details are missing (age, date of death, place of death, etc). I have looked over WP:SPS, and I don't find funeral homes as falling under this. Even then, as we aren't directly using the funeral homes article in this, as the notice is published on BBC, I still don't find SPS applies.

An additional issue was raised about the BBC itself, an editor finding BBC has reported in bias in the past. I don't see how this is applicable. They are reporting on a funeral procession, I'm not sure what biases would or could be applied. Additionally, the BBC has been deemed at perennial sources as being generally reliable.

On these points, I feel the irritants surrounding the BBC source are counterable, and they don't render the source as being disqualifiable. I would understand better if this source was just coming out at the same time as other sources reporting on the death for the first time, but it was published a week and a half later reporting on new information and citing a funeral notice giving a specified date. I therefore don't see the DOD as being ambiguous and it's able to be included as just "14 September" without a circa. Rusted AutoParts 21:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my summary of this matter from the DR for clarity on my position here: This strikes me as primarily a WP:PSTS matter. There are two primary sources that indicate an exact date of death of 14 September, as described by Rusted Auto Parts. While I couldn't say whether Coroner's Offices ever list dates of death with "circa" or indicate uncertainty in another way, or just give the best approximation in cases such as this pending the inquest's findings, I agree that this is entering into speculative territory. However, the weight of secondary of sources remain clear that the date of death is not certain – from closer to the time ([1]), and made more clear by the timeline by the inquest at its opening in the last week ([2][3][4]), reliably confirming that he was not seen after 12 September. It seems clear to me, per PSTS, that this creates a circumstance where we should not definitively list an exact date of death, because secondary sources tell us that this is not certain.

There is one secondary source, from prior to the inquest, that mentions in passing "As of his death on Sunday 14 September". I'm going to again quote MIDI here from the talk page discussion, because I think they put this very well: What other sources do we have for the precise date? Should we cherry pick a single source that gives specific information, ignoring those that don't corroborate it? While this is no longer a breaking story, WP:RSBREAKING guidance seems pertinent – "seek multiple independent sources which independently verify". Are we able to do that with what the sources currently say? My view is this is one reliable secondary source that briefly contradicts multiple others on this matter: in this instance, not only are the other sources more numerous, they more centrally concern the timeline of Hatton's final days, and in the majority of cases come from after the inquest's opening, when more detailed information became available. Taking all this into account, I continue to believe that a "circa" caveat next to the 14 September date is most appropriate at this time, given the information we have available through reliable secondary sources. U-Mos (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Piker and the dog collar

A RFC about the subject have been started here --Trade (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see some people saying it's a "bad RFC". LDW5432 (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing BLP problems over the same dog-collar issue identified in the BLPN discussion above.

The article is now fully protected and heavily redacted. The talk page was protected and redacted as well, and the protection recently expired.

We now have a couple of sources for consideration that rise above general RSP or RSN consensus against use in a BLP. The RfC does not identify specific content nor references.

Other BLP disputes with the article include whether or not a chronological presentation would be appropriate, the treatment of various Twitter suspensions/bans, and what content is appropriate for the lede. --Hipal (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are statements in wikivoice accusing nn living people of crimes sourced to a quotes written by a third party acceptable?

Are statements like

[NAME] took the victim to a hotel, began video recording her, raped her, then threatened to release the video as revenge porn

and

Outside of the hotel, the victim encountered a man named [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] forced the victim to drink something intoxicating, then he raped her in the hotel

from this revision of 2025 Varanasi gang rape, sourced to [5], acceptable? Neither source presents the actions as fact, they attribute the claims (often quoting) a 3rd party not present at any of the incidents. There has been no criminal conviction in this case that I can see. The article has since been edited to remove some of the names & insert the word "allegedly" or "reportedly" into some statements, but others remain.

Previous discussion at [6], but the article author has decided that I have become emotional investment in these articles, so rather than continue, I've decided to refer this here.

I have a personal policy of not editing articles about sexual assault/rape allegations made against living people when no conviction has been secured. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 19:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, regarding WP:BLPCRIME, I don't know if names should be included for the accused at all. However, I defer to more experienced BLP editors. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the third party source is a high quality reliable source, then such claims can be included but they should still not be in wiki voice, absent a court decision of guilt. Here adding something like "The victim said..." would be sufficient to take thee out of wiki voice. Masem (t) 21:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations can be included if they are well sourced but should be stated as allegations not fact. Masem's suggestion seems right in light of BLPCRIME. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be cautious under BLP, you should write what crime they were accused of, but not list details of the specific statements.LDW5432 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe

I work for Nestlé, the former employer of Peter Brabeck-Letmathe. The current page on him says he was born in "Nazi Austria" in the infobox and "German-occupied Austria" in the Early life section. Doing some basic math suggests this is true, as Austria was liberated from Nazi control 5 months after Peter was born.

However, it seems like an UNDUE and OR issue, as I don't see it in the citation given or in any other citation I can find. I think Wikipedia might be adding more significance to it than is warranted and doing its own analysis, as none of the citations discuss Austria being under Nazi control during his first 5 months after birth. Buckeye16505 (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the infobox to just use Austria, and slightly altered the early life section in the way it mentions Austria within Nazi Germany. Infoboxes are poor at handling anything but basic details, but mentioning the historic details seems fitting to an early life section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is it ok that it's still uncited? The citation given does not actually mention Nazis or Germany, unless I missed it. Buckeye16505 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a reference showing that Austria was under Nazi rule in 1944 could be found, as is a simple historic fact. That he was born at a time of great trouble for Austria seems relevant to his early life, which is why I left it in. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know § Bruce Lehrmann

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know § Bruce Lehrmann. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a BLP violation to include a case on the front page while it is going through an appeals process. LDW5432 (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Zhang

I'm worried the article has issues of both WP:COI and WP:NPOV. While I don't think the article needs to be necessarily deleted, I think it needs heavy revisions and that Cryptochelys should be banned or at least barred from editing that article. I copy my comments from the article's talk page:

I'm worried about a potential WP:COI on this page, which was created by Cryptochelys. Cryptochelys created his account around 2019, around the illegal activites of Kang Zhang fist came to light. The article mentions this nowhere, and Cryptochelys has continued editing this page deleting any controversial aspect of Kang Zhang's carear. For example, see this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kang_Zhang&diff=prev&oldid=983457408

Cryptochelys claimed that the edit was "unsourced" but the claim had a citation (which Cryptochelys likewise deleted. Cryptochelys has continued to edit the page as recently as August of the year. I find it highly likely that Cryptochelys is either Zhang himself or otherwise someone highly close to Zhang who has a vested interest in biasing the article and removing any negative information about Zhang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.60 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The forum for user behavior issues is WP:ANI or perhaps WP:COIN. Please feel free to edit and discuss normally on the article talkpage. This forum is for escalation when no consensus emerges on the talkpage. You only recently posted there as well. Give it some edits and some time. Look into other forums for administrative action. We are mostly volunteers here. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Not sure how to sign my comment, but seems it gets autosigned. I will post on WP:ANI and WP:COIN. 65.112.8.60 (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You sign with four tildes: ~~~~. Once you preview or submit your edit, you should see your signature replaced automatically where the tildes were. JFHJr (㊟) 19:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks65.112.8.60 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Satterfield

WP:NAC:

Resolved

JFHJr (㊟) 19:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sarah is not her name.

Carla Davis, (Her daughter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:1600:8c88:13e8:2ea2:b646:bf73 (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the name Sarah, unclear where it came from, as none of the sources support it. Mfield (Oi!) 06:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Relationship of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein

Could someone give this draft a read to check it doesnt violate BLP?--Trade (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only source I would doubled check is World Socialist Web Site I do not think that's reliable. Otherwise source wise it looks good. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Walsh (political commentator)

Two editors are insisting on using social media, Twitter to reference quotes from the subject. They state that this is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. They are essentially bypassing the whole notability criteria to ensure this quote get into the article at Matt Walsh (political commentator). They are effectively trash references used to bypass WP:NPOV, WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 17:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the talk page discussion referenced, so editors here do not have to go hunting for it. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to clarify as one of the other editors in that discussion: I only supported Twitter references to establish a birthdate, not to include quotes from the subject into the article. See also this edit request. Shapeyness (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Manning

This biography contains non-relevant and overly glowing info on Danny Manning and needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.149.202 (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP! It appears you haven't availed yourself yet to the article talkpage. Please feel free to comment there as a forum of first instance, and escalate here if no WP:CONSENSUS emerges. In any forum, here or there, please state or list specific individual problems, as well as your proposal for any remedy. General complaints are generally unhelpful for the volunteers here. See also WP:BRD for steps to take to make the changes you seek. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about this?

Draft:Brianna J. Rivers was rejected at AfC and then subsequently deleted by @Kusma: as WP:SD#G10; the creator @H Articles: has produced what I presume is the essentially similar Draft:The Attack on Pro-Life Activist Savannah Craven Antao and (after that was rejected at AfC) attempted to cram essentially similar content into Live Action (organization) (diff). Is the new draft also a candidate for G10? Does anything need to be rev-delled? --JBL (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! Thank you for the revert. I misread. Facially, yes, it's eligible for an attack page WP:CSD. The current version appears to be substantially an attack article regarding the same WP:BLPCRIME. JFHJr (㊟) 21:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the page, and another copy under another title. While the incident may turn out to be notable, this draft and the others would need to be fundamentally rewritten to comply with Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:BLPCRIME. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! --JBL (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a multiple namespace problem. I've bulleted 4 namespaces at the top of the post. Please add more above and re-post below if more crop up before this gets archived. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pollard

This article says that jews say Amalekites must be killed, implying a threat to the Biden administration by Pollard.

The very article sourced clearly says that the mitzvah (commandment) was effectively nullified. The source clearly says that it’s symbolic and clearly concludes that the commandment is to kill the ideology which Amalek symbolizes. The comment by Pollard was obviously symbolic and criticizing the values of the administration. There is no rational interpretation suggesting that he was calling for murder.

Further, the original source in the Bible says that the memory of amalek must be erased. It does not say to kill anyone. See deuteronomy 25:17.

This is a gross misrepresentation of a nuanced topic that the source itself addresses. It misquotes the verb of the commandment and implies a murderous intent.

The disclaimer for Israel-Palestine article editing notes the contentiousness of the topic and the extra caution that must be taken. This is inflammatory and dangerous and does nothing to help the contentiousnes of the conflict.

I would say the same thing about any mention that misquotes the notion of jihad and implies murderous intents of Palestinians or Muslims. We should work to bridge our gaps, not widen them as this statement does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2300:b06:c0c3:ed3a:e38a:e305 (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, someone should probably remove it. I can't be arsed, myself... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. Even if the source supports that Jewish law mandates the killing of Amalekites (which it does not) it does not connect this in any way to Pollard's remarks on the Biden administration; if this is due in the article on Pollard we should be citing a source which explicitly makes this connection rather that straying towards improper synthesis like this. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would remove the source Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Parncutt

Someone added the following sentence to the first paragraph of Richard Parncutt: "He became known to a wider audience for a controversial text published in 2012 that called for the death penalty for the Pope and climate deniers."

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. But this is sensationalist. It is not a neutral point of view.

First, this is not what I am known for, not even to a "wider audience". I am known for my frequently cited academic research.

Second, the text in question did not "call for" anything. I clarified at several points that I oppose the death penalty in all cases. The aim of the text was to save the lives of untold millions of future victims of global warming, as explained on the first page.

Third, other wikipedia editors have discussed this issue and come to the conclusion that a reference to this incident does not belong in the opening paragraph.

For further information see http://www.parncutt.org/dp2.html.

John Wesley Ryles

OP found a WP:RS for DOD. JFHJr (㊟) 23:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Wesley Ryles apparently died yesterday, but so far I have failed to find any reliable sources verifying as such -- just Facebook and a music forum or two. I would suggest that more eyes be kept on this article until his death is independently corroborated. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you found a reliable source. JFHJr (㊟) 23:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zohran Mamdani

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

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

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

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

Mamdani has uttered the phrase and he is affiliated with Nerdeen Kiswani and her organization WOL the person who created the phrase initially [[7]] [[8]]. His refusal to initially condemn the phrase was also covered by outlets like politico [[9]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mamdani's refusal to condemn the phrase was discussed in multiple GREL sources,[10][11][12] as was his subsequent stated intention to discourage its use.[13][14][15] This easily meets BLP and should be included. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

So far, it has only really come up in the context of the election; I don't think it can reasonably be called a significant aspect of his biography going forwards, so it'd be undue there. Since the election is today, we can just wait until a few months after that and see if it still has WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that indicates that it might be a relevant part of his bio, but I'm skeptical. As it is, almost all the sources focused on him regarding it seem to be from late June or early July, which suggests that it's already faded and lacked sustained coverage in the first place. --Aquillion (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mamdani has stated positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict, which are noted in his BLP article. Any issue or question on which he has not stated a position should not be noted in the "political positions" section of his personal BLP. The fact that some people want him to state a position or that sources mention that he has not taken a position do not change this basic fact. This conversation would be different if the issue in question were especially material to the administration of the city or state of New York. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the Israel and Gaza genocide is already long and repetitive. If he has stated positions on Palestinian self-determination, it might be worth replacing some of the repetitive stuff with a sentence about that. Talking about what he has not said about a slogan related to Palestinian resistance seems UNDUE. Guettarda (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rabi Lamichhane

Nominated for CSD G10 as an attack page due to the page mostly focusing on the politician's controversies. I declined G10 as the page can absolutely be salvaged through normal editing, but I would like editors more familiar with the topic to ascertain whether the content is WP:DUE. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Edwards (media personality)

At Keith Edwards (media personality), a new editor has reverted unsourced personal information back into the article three times: here with a personal attack, here, and here. The source they're claiming in edit summaries does not cover the claims in question: a specific birthdate, a specific birthplace. He's also restored a link to a FamousFix (user-generated material and/or junk content scraper). Oddly, they're well aware of WP:BLP, given that they've attempted to utilize it in past discussions, although his comments were collapsed as AI-generated. I've clearly called out my BLP concerns in my edit summaries and in an ignored conversation on the user's talk page. A second set of eyes would be apricated, since I'm apparently "an idiot". Sam Kuru (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warring editor now has a 72 hour block to cool their heals, so this is handled for the moment. (Learning how to report edit warring may be useful for future situations like this.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Kershaw, 3x World Series champion

The BLP article Clayton Kershaw has attracted 25+ semi-protected edit requests in the last year seeking to add that he was a "World Series champion" in 2024. With the Dodgers' win last week, new edits also seek to add that he is now a "3-time World Series champion" to the infobox, prose, etc.

Kershaw pitched for the Dodger in 2024 but was put on the injured list at the end of August and did not appear on any post-season rosters.

Despite not pitching in the 2024 post-season, reliable secondary sources are unanimously in agreement that Kershaw was a 2024 World Series champion and is now a 3-time World Series champion for 2020, 2024, and 2025:

Associated Press: "Kershaw also won World Series championships in 2020 and 2024."
CBS Sports: "And now, he finishes with back-to-back World Series championships."
ESPN: "And that's gratifying because it means Kershaw was at least a contributor to the third championship of his storied career."
New York Times: ...thrilled to call himself a three-time champion.
USA Today: And that plaque will say, "three-time World Series champion."
Yahoo! Sports: Clayton Kershaw ends his career as a 3-time champion, in tears
The Orange County Register: Dodgers send Clayton Kershaw into retirement as a 3-time World Series champion
Fox Sports: …feels grateful for winning his 3rd World Series title with the Los Angeles Dodgers. ... Kershaw spent his entire career with the Dodgers and won three World Series rings. ... Kershaw also won World Series championships in 2020 and 2024.
Los Angeles Times: He’s a two-time World Series champion. (written prior to winning his third)

These edit requests have all been rejected as, apparently, there is past consensus in the baseball Wikiproject that only two sources should be considered for this material: his profile at MLB.com (WP:PRIMARY, WP:TERTIARY, and WP:COISOURCE) and the stats website "Baseball Reference" (WP:TERTIARY and arguably WP:SELFPUBLISHED). Both of these tertiary sources say "2x World Series champion (2020, 2025)" and omit the 2024 season when he played in the regular season, and was still under contract with the team, but was not on the active post-season roster.

As a result this GA-class BLP article is currently out of line with every single reliable secondary source written about Clayton Kershaw.

PK-WIKI (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is well established that Wikiprojects can not dictate what sources can and can not be used in articles, or what content is to be included. If the talk page discussion does not, or can not, resolve this disputed content, then a RfC may be the next logical avenue. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We just dealt with this with another Wikiproject which was similarly attempting to dictate we chose the views of one specific source over others. If editors from any Wikiproject attempt to enforce a local consensus against site wide consensus, that's getting into a behavioural issue which might need an ANI thread for topic bans. Nil Einne (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is an RfC I started at Talk:Clayton Kershaw#RfC: 2x or 3x champ?. At the time, I was unaware of this thread which predates the RfC. To avoid WP:MULTI, this can probably be closed unless there are specific BLP-related issues that can't be worked out via the RfC. Left guide (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that it's necessary to close this. It will naturally find its way to the archive. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Delzer

date of birth is 3/1/1956 not 9/1/1959 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31216-72 (talk • contribs)

Please direct your inquiry to the associated talk page, along with a source for your information. Probably Talk:Jeff Delzer. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the date of birth, as it was unsourced. Please do not add in any other date unless you have a source that qualifies under our guidelines regarding the inclusion of dates of birth for living people. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emily McDonald

This is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_McDonald

This person is listed as a neurologist. A neurologist is a clinical position. This person went to graduate school for a research degree in neuroscience. However, I would not consider this person a neuroscientist either as this person apparently did not complete her PhD. While this alone would not preclude someone from using this title, it is conventional at least for a scientist to have a PhD and be actively performing research; so far as I can tell neither of these are true. Additionally, this person has no scientific publications so far as I can find, so she has not contributed to scientific research. My guess is that this page was written by this person or by a colleague of hers to depict her in a flattering light, likely due to needing a bulwark of her credentials due to a large social media presence in which she identifies herself as a neuroscientist. However, much of this article evincing her credentials is spurious. I would recommend revising the article to refine statements on her credentials, which necessitates better sourcing should they be as flattering as they are now, but leaving any discussion of her social media activities.

I say this as a practicing research neuroscientist in a university setting. i was made aware of this person recently by a colleague and dug around, finding this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31309-86 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the cited sources call her a neurologist. I've changed to neuroscientist for now as that is the term that the sources use. The more I look at this article the more doubts I have about it in general, though. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong paid vibes; at least two other articles by the same author are currently at AfD for similar reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farshad Dehbozorgi Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Lippman. ~2025-31168-81 (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11

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

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

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

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

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

Defamatory Lawsuit content on Doron Levy’s Page

I am reporting a violation of Wikipedia‘s BLP policies.

The Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doron_Levy&oldid=1320633067#Civil_rights_lawsuit

The Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doron_Levy&diff=prev&oldid=1320633067

A new section about an ongoing lawsuit was added by someone who may be aligned with the plaintiff and uses the BLP page as the stage for litigation against the defendant. The lawsuit is presented in a misleading and negative light, and uses legal jargon that obscures the key facts from the cited secondary source. The lawsuit is pending, and not publicized. Its inclusion gives it undue weight aimed at damaging the subject’s reputation and gaining leverage for the plaintiff.

I have removed this section, citing breaches of BLP (defamatory material about living people), UNDUE (giving excessive attention to a pending trial and deceptively implying the guilt of the defendant), COI (content with the express desire to damage someone’s reputation), LEGAL (Wikipedia is not a platform for litigants to advance their case). The section was back very quickly and most likely will keep reappearing. I strongly recommend that the Wikipedia editors remove this entry and then lock the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlanda1799 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlanda1799: I have removed the text and will watch the article. Please let me know if further problems occur that I miss. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping out so quickly and watching it. I really appreciate it and love my first experience as a member. If this back-and-forth repeats, would it be possible to lock the page or there are other steps? Mlanda1799 (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is only done if really necessary. Long discussions are the norm here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thank you so much! Mlanda1799 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short description of Phil Collins

Hi, a consensus is needed on how to write the short description of Phil Collins. Could you guys please share your thoughts at Talk:Phil Collins#Short description wording? Regards, Thedarkknightli (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Skinner (businessman)

The article about Thomas Skinner (businessman) ...

... has been edited by at least two sockpuppeteers and through semi-protection. Perhaps someone can have a look if there are neutrality issues resulting from the recent manipulations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lingyun Gu

This is more of a WP:COIN concern than a BLP concern (but the account hasn't edited in 2 years so it wouldn't be actionable there anyway). I've made an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingyun Gu. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lio Tipton

There seems to have been a lot of fuss recently about adding a contentious claim to this person, which is only cited to the Daily Beast and primary sources. I have extended confirmed protected the article for a week to try and focus activity towards this on the talk page, but this could use some more eyes from experienced editors to weigh in on the issue. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Ritchie has improperly invoked Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality as cause for protecting the article in question. The fact Lio is non-binary is entirely irrelevant and not the locus of the dispute at all, rather it is centered on the following quote per The Daily Beast:

"I didn’t know anybody and these nice people offered friendship," Tipton says. "They ended up being bad people that wanted to exploit young, trusting girls." Not long after, she began receiving phone calls that said, "You have to come to Saudi Arabia. He wants to make you his wife." It turns out she had been "sold" to the aforementioned Saudi prince for an undisclosed sum. "That was my moment of, 'OK, I have to grow a spine,'" says Tipton.

It was certainly not ArbCom's intention for discussions of sexual exploitation to be obscured when a non-binary person happens to be the victim, and seeing the policy being misapplied in this way leaves a bad taste. ~2025-31868-41 (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The protection mentions WP:CTOP/BLP first, so the gensex one isn't even necessary. Protection is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest allegations of sex trafficking of young girls and also forced marriage both of which are likely to be considered a form of gender-related violence, is clearly covered by gensex anyway. The temporary account have themselves brought up sexual exploitation which likewise seems likely to come under gensex.Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also in case there's some confusion by the temporary account, the point of any CTOP area is that these are contentious areas. Editors therefore need to be on their best behaviour. So no edit warring but instead concentrate even more on good faith discussion and achieving consensus. Don't make personal attacks or false accusations (e.g. vandalism), especially not in discussion over the content, instead keep discussions on behavioural issues on editor talk pages and the noticeboards (including ARE). Only use the best sources & ensure anything disputed is well sourced. And when there is significant doubt it's generally best to leave it out. Nil Einne (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie claimed that the reason CT:GENSEX applied was that the subject was non-binary, even linking the revision in which NB was added. That rationale is clearly flawed, and you are now inventing another one. I'm sure you'll understand this is exceptionally tedious.

As for "edit warring", the user who requested protection was the one with the most reverts, and when it became clear that he was going against the flow, he went running to get the page protected. Additionally, you can see on the Talk page that he has been exceptionally hostile to users who disagree with him, accusing them of using "sleeper accounts". He's also visited the Talk page of at least one editor to cast aspersions.

That same user is the only one presenting any significant doubt, arguing that a woman being approached by a fake modelling agency and then "bought" to become a "wife" is unrelated to sex trafficking.

I would be thoroughly fascinated to hear how this can be considered CT:GENSEX, even under your rather expansive definition including VAWG in general, when this poor little Saudi Prince obviously just wanted to buy her flowers. Perhaps it could be included as a heart-wrenching story of unrequited love instead? It will be interesting to see how this evolves after protection expires. ~2025-31868-41 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is in edit summary or here on BLPN or on the article talk page. If you have problems with what the protecting admin said on their talk page take it up with them. What is clear is that this comes under both BLP and GENSEX CTOP and so far rather than editors trying to use only the best sources they're trying to justify absolutely totally crap ones which is just not on for any CTOP area and could lead to topic bans if it continues especially if it ever affects main space. Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW while not something for BLPN since you brought it up there is good reason to suspect sock or meatpuppetry in that talk page so it was IMO fine to bring up concerns. Perhaps it could have been kept on editor talk pages but it's difficult when it's directly affecting the article talk page. Also to state the obvious we cannot change the narrative of something that happened to remove it from a CTOP area which wouldn't even work here since as SFR said this would always be BLP. And CTOP only means editors have to be on their best behaviour. Editors shouldn't be using or trying to justify shitty sources even outside of CTOP. Nil Einne (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Morgan

I assume it's the former, since the latter probably doesn't have management and isn't likely to have been editing Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - yes sorry, used the wrong link ~2025-31902-31 (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously written either by the subject or their management. Significant editing required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31902-31 (talk • contribs)

Nambaryn Enkhbayar - BLP violation with contradictory citation and history of edit warring

The article Nambaryn Enkhbayar contains a clear BLP violation in the opening paragraph that has been the subject of repeated edit wars. The statement reads: "Due to his corruption scandal he is regarded as the godfather of corruption in Mongolian politics by the public media."

Critical Problems:

1. Contradictory citation: Reference #3 (news.mn) is titled "Ганц Н.Энхбаяр авлигын загалмайлсан эцэг биш!" which translates to "Enkhbayar is NOT the ONLY godfather of corruption" - this source actually contradicts the claim it purports to support. A citation cannot support a claim when it explicitly refutes or significantly qualifies that claim.

2. Poor sourcing quality: Reference #2 appears to be a translated Russian article via assa.mn/Business New Europe - not evidence of "public media" consensus in Mongolia. Using two questionable sources (one of which contradicts the claim) does not meet Wikipedia's standards for a BLP, especially for such inflammatory language.

3. Non-neutral, pejorative language: "Godfather of corruption" is inflammatory rhetoric that violates WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL. This is not encyclopedic language and places undue emphasis on a characterization that is not demonstrated to be the dominant view.

4. Weasel words: The phrase "regarded as...by the public media" is vague and unsupported. Which media outlets? What constitutes "public media" in Mongolia? How widespread is this characterization? None of this is demonstrated.

5. Undue weight in lede: Even if some outlets used this term, featuring it prominently in the opening paragraph suggests it's the primary or defining characterization of this individual, which is not supported by the sources.

History of edit warring and protection: This exact issue has caused persistent problems: - The page was protected on May 5, 2024 by El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) specifically for "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy" - The revision history shows numerous attempts to remove or add this contentious material dating back years (see edits by various IPs in 2024, 2015, 2014, and earlier) - Multiple editors have repeatedly reverted additions and removals of this content, indicating this is a longstanding BLP concern

Current status: I raised this issue on the talk page over a week ago with detailed analysis. There have been no objections to removal, but given the page's contentious history and protection status, I believe administrator oversight is needed before proceeding.

The corruption case itself is already covered neutrally and extensively later in the article with proper context. This inflammatory characterization in the lede should be removed per BLP policy. ~~~~ ~2025-31941-01 (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are having difficulty getting a response, it is probably because you are generating your comments with a chatbot. Most editors don't want to converse with a chatbot. If you were to describe the issues in your own words, it might work better. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see "Godfather of Corruption" in the translated title of the referenced source, but I haven't the idea if the source is reliable. LDW5432 (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports figures considered the greatest

List of sports figures considered the greatest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Created in March from a list within GOAT (sports culture), it's ballooned to an unmanageable size (520,127 bytes) with 1462 references.

Sources are being chosen indiscriminately. Pick any ten in a row, and I expect you'll find some that are unreliable or otherwise inappropriate for BLP use. Are there any lists of references that might help editors beyond WP:RSP (eg generally reliable sports references)?

Inclusion criteria is only now being drafted, though relevant discussion was started at article creation. Are there any inclusion criteria with strong general consensus that might be adapted for use?

Should we even be attempting to create and maintain such an article?

(Apologies for the edit summary[16], should have written MB, not gig) --Hipal (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources are being chosen indiscriminately." Though I agree with what Hipal means here, I could quibble. A quick glance suggested that the enormous majority of the sources are in English, and that very many of these are from the US. All it needs is for a "slow news day" kind-of-journalism product to be published in a reliable source in some nation you might not have expected (SNYMNHE), presenting its GOATs with what many Americans might consider an indulgent treatment of SNYMNHE athletes, and there could be a bunch of new entries in this list (or pleas for them). Ditto for each such nation. And there are plenty of other opportunities for expansion. I'm not questioning Merckx's position as G-cyclist-OAT when I point out that he definitely isn't the GOAT of downhill mountain biking (which only started to win the attention of professional road cyclists after he'd retired). There are other Merckx-irrelevant subgenres of cycling, and I've no reason to think that cycling is anomalous here. ¶ "Should we even be attempting to create and maintain such an article?" It hardly seems encyclopedic to me. Material for Fandom, perhaps? But I have to concede that "considered the greatest" (as opposed to "who have been the greatest") gives it some hope. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Berlinski

This article doesn't seem to have many page watchers because I left a comment at Talk:David Berlinski#CSC a few days ago and no one commented. More eyes would be welcome. The concern I have is with the framing of the lead. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah just read the lead--it definitely appears to have a skewed POV. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reem Alsalem.. WTAF lol. (Minus the ‘arbpia’ bit?)

Reem Alsalem this one..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: It should be noted, concerning the OP's statement, that reports she's authored and "press releases" she's published do not count for said coverage. So whatever she's released about other subject matter is irrelevant if none of that has gotten secondary coverage. Silver seren^C 22:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

There were some blatant BLPBALANCE issues in that there were no secondary RS sourcing to support many of the laundry list criticism of her views. I had removed several of them in July but User:Amanda A. Brant would coatrack several more in.[17][18]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mario Sixtus

Hi everyone, I started the article on journalist and filmmaker Mario Sixtus. Now, I am taken aback by what seem to be malicious (and possibly politically motivated?) edits by an IP who wrote: "This supporter of far-left terrorism works for the state media, who award the Grimme price to themselves" as ground for his/her edit on Oct 15: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mario_Sixtus&oldid=1316961721

(BTW: The Grimme-price is Germany's most prestigious TV price and state media usually don't employ terrorists)

Anyway: The edit got reverted and appeared again and got reverted etc etc. IMHO - as this is a living person - we should be really careful about entries that can ruin a journalist's reputation. Unless it's proven, neither the claim nor the "controversy" should be in the arcticle. I fact-checked the claims and they are based on rumours. That, IMHO, is not good enough. Question, since I am more familiar of the workings of German WP, what would be a good way in English WP to stop this? Happy Sunday, everyone!Satu Katja (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Satu Katja Hello! Favonian has protected the article upon this request. Happy Sunday! Polygnotus (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Husain Al-Musallam

Husain Al-Musallam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone persistently attempts to sanitize this article. (Previously, these have been banned sockfarms.) I think the reasons for the removal cited on the talk page are particularly unsound, with the exception of the "£7 million" claim. However, I would really appreciate your feedback whether restoring is proper.

Additionally, can someone check if the paywalled article in The Times makes the claims that are cited to it?

Thank you very much.

—Janhrach (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate note is that the complainant seems to rely heavily on WP:BLPCRIME to keep matters out. However, as Director General of the Olympic Council of Asia and the Secretary General of the Kuwait Olympic Committee, he is a person of reasonably high visibility, and as a person who has accepted multiple honorary doctorates, he has chosen to show himself to the public. As such, he can reasonably be considered a "public figure", and the protections of BLPCRIME do not apply to him. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the since-edited version of the article, the statement was The Times identified Hussain Al-Musallam as "co-conspirator #3". From the article cited (which was not paywalled for me, but I may be under the free-sample limit), The indictment also states that co-conspirator No 3 was “a high-ranking official of the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA) and an official of the Kuwait Football Association (KFA)”. That is believed to refer to Al-Musallam [...] "Believed to refer" seems to fall a shade short of "identified", so at least some rephrasing should be called for. Other than that, looks fine. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 2017 AP article that specifically uses "identified" for connecting him to co-conspirator #3. Here is more reference to it from a 2021 article (also AP), that shows lasting interest. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler Yeah I dropped some sources on the talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Nat that the reliably sourced material that clearly references Al-Musallam by name should be restored. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia Sounds like we have a consensus. Is everyone afraid to actually revert? Why? Polygnotus (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an edit conflict that means the content would need to be added back manually. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this will be the last of it looking at the history, so I would recommend putting it on your watchlist. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaston Rivero

The article about opera singer Gaston Rivero has a history of additions without sources or with insufficient ones since its creation. Edits have been made predominantely from single purpose accounts, and from IP accounts (including myself). The current state of the article is mostly fine, the biggest remaining problem is a very long table listing every single one of his performances over the years, at the end of the Career section. I've left a message on the talk page about that. I'd be very grateful for more eyes on the article. --~2025-32357-42 (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translate from English into Dutch

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

Suleyman, Singh, Rajesh

Chimene Suleyman (writer)

This page is inaccurately reporting that Suleyman This page is inaccurately reporting that Singhwas a victim of a racist pile on after the Kate Clanchy controversy, when recent media shows she orchestrated the pile on and lied about the abuse. My attempts to change this are being overwritten by an account called Belfry. If the controversy is going to be mentioned it needs to be a fair account, it is not the case that this woman was the victim of racist abuse and nor does the cited source evidence such.

Sunny Singh (writer)

This page is inaccurately reporting that Singhwas a victim of a racist pile on after the Kate Clanchy controversy, when recent media shows she orchestrated the pile on and lied about the abuse. My attempts to change this are being overwritten by an account called Belfry. If the controversy is going to be mentioned it needs to be a fair account, it is not the case that this woman was the victim of racist abuse and nor does the cited source evidence such.

Monish Rajesh

This page is inaccurately reporting that Singh was a victim of a racist pile on after the Kate Clanchy controversy, when recent media shows she orchestrated the pile on my attempts to change this are being overwritten by an account called Belfry. If the controversy is going to be mentioned it needs to be a fair account, it is not the case that this woman was the victim of racist abuse and nor does the cited source evidence such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-32433-93 (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted to consolidate related requests into one section. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hadnagy biography – WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE concerns about lawsuit prominence and ILF merge proposal

I am Christopher Hadnagy, the subject of the article. I have a declared Conflict of Interest and am not editing the article directly ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am Christopher Hadnagy, the subject of the article. I have a declared Conflict of Interest and am not editing the article directly.

- Summary of issue:**

The current lead paragraph of the article gives disproportionate emphasis to a defamation lawsuit and its dismissal, presenting it as a defining characteristic of the biography. This appears to conflict with WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP, and WP:BLP.

- Policy concerns:**

- WP:LEAD – The introduction should summarize a person’s defining aspects, not temporary controversies. - WP:UNDUE / WP:BALASP – The lawsuit received limited, time-bound coverage and is not proportional to the broader body of reliable, published material about my work in cybersecurity education and nonprofit leadership. - WP:BLP – Contentious material about living persons must be presented with appropriate weight and context to avoid misleading emphasis.

Because the disputed material appears prominently in the lead, it continues to cause reputational harm by presenting an unbalanced view, which these policies are designed to prevent.

- Unresolved Talk-page discussion:**

Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Christopher Hadnagy with User:Dreamyshade and others. Despite repeated policy references, the lead still emphasizes the lawsuit, and a merge proposal has been raised to fold the Innocent Lives Foundation (ILF) into this biography.

- Concerns regarding ILF merge proposal:**

Merging ILF into this article would violate WP:ORG and WP:INDEPENDENCE. ILF is an independent nonprofit organization with its own governance and media coverage discussing its mission and collaboration with law enforcement. Examples include: - [Tripwire](https://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/hacking-innocent-lives-using-osint-online-child-predators) - [WUSA9](https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/covid-coronavirus-child-predators-online-gaming-social-media/65-e65dec74-750e-4cbc-893d-e7ece5b249e0) - [MetalSucks/The Rockpit](https://www.metalsucks.net/2019/11/25/clutchs-neil-fallon-launches-fund-raising-charity-auction-to-benefit-the-innocent-lives-foundation/)

- Requested administrative input:**

1. Review whether inclusion of the lawsuit in the lead violates WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. 2. Determine if the Innocent Lives Foundation article meets WP:ORG and should remain independent. 3. Advise on proper handling of disputed BSides Cleveland sourcing, which may rely on first-wave or non-independent reports.

- Talk-page context:**

Talk:Christopher Hadnagy – Ongoing discussion with editors.

Thank you to the administrators and editors reviewing for neutrality and BLP compliance.

— ChristopherHadnagy (COI declared, will not edit directly)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Discussions Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards