Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

The box, introduction, and Parliamentary Career section needs updating with Toby Perkins' new position of Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. He was elected chair and assumed office on 11 September 2024. He was preceded by the Rt Hon Philip Dunne MP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.161.4.84 (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not page protected, so feel free to update the article yourself with inline citations to reliable sources that verify the content you add and/or change. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Sorry I should have said - I work for Toby Perkins and my understanding was that the guidance was not to update the page yourself if you are the person or if you work for the person. In this instance, do you think it would be okay for me to do as you suggest and to update the article myself? 194.60.38.229 (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can make an edit request on the talk page clearly indicating what needs to be changed along with the sources for your updates. Iffy★Chat -- 13:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I already did that about a month ago and the changes haven't been implemented yet - hence why I was following up on this page, as I thought that was the next port of call :) 194.60.38.229 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an edit request template to the edit request, I had a quick look and see you cited your proposed edit only to the member's parliamentary profile. Are there are any sources independent of parliament you could use to support the proposed changes? Iffy★Chat -- 17:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Hewitt (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am filing this notice regarding recent edits to the John Hewitt (entrepreneur) article, specifically the "Controversy" section. Reasons for BLP Policy Violation: Content was removed and replaced without providing reliable, published sources.The current content is now correct and verified under citation 1 The new material lacks proper citations and may be challenged or is likely to be challenged. Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy requires that all contentious material about living persons must be verifiable, written from a neutral point of view, and not include original research.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bio2022forBrands (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we do not cite court records to support assertions regarding living persons. Acoordingly, I have removed the citation, and the (thus unsourced) 'controversy' section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's something very fishy going on here that merits further investigation. Bio2022forBrands is a username that screams COI and they are an SPA that is exclusively focussed on this article. They have removed semi-plausibly sourced critical info on multiple occasions. The content was sourced to Bloomberg, albeit via Yahoo News.

• here (which also adds poorly written and empty promotional waffle: "The synergy between the bands allow franchisees to creat a portfolio of several business that compliment each other as a way to diversify and grow their entities")
• here (which also added content which refers to the subject by first name suggesting familiarity: "John was awarded the 2005 Entreprenuer Of The Year by the International Franchise Association at their 2006 Convention In Palm Springs California, as a result of the extraordinary growth and innovative branding tactics he created at Liberty Tax.")
• here
• here
• Most recently, here.

This looks like reputation management. If the subject is notable enough for a BLP, which is uncertain, then the critical coverage should be reinstated with appropriate weight and sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessicapierce: Judging by their User Talk page, you seem to have crossed swords with this editor earlier this year. Do you have a feel for what might be going on here? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have too much to add to the very good points laid out above, but I do remember this situation.

This series of edits got on my radar due to various formatting errors. I removed the changes for a multitude of reasons, and did note that it seemed like the contributor had a vested interest. There was a wild, unsourced increase to the figure of offices run by the company, from 2,500 to 4,350. Hewitt was referred to as "John," and there was a lot of minute detail added about the operational aspects of a charitable foundation. Mention was made of Hewitt being keynote speaker at a sales conference - with respect, nobody would care to add that, except someone connected to the subject.

That series of edits also removed a swath of sourced content about Hewitt's workplace controversies. If those sources were insufficient, that's one thing, but to me this looks like a person simply trying to whitewash the page.

Similar edits here again added the trivia about the charity, removed the controversy section, and included the edit summary "Case20-652,Document 85-1 9/30/2020 Summary Order re:Liberty Tax, Inc. Sec.Litig Hewitt was exhonerated in the class action Suit. The Skadden Report was unfounded and crafted to disparage Mr. Hewitt. The information was not taken under oathe and the report was never seeen by Mr. Hewitt"

Though nigh unreadable, that summary, to me, indicates a relationship with Hewitt, or at least knowledge of his activities.

I had a limited and fruitless conversation with the editor on their Talk page. Jessicapierce (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've  Blocked Bio2022forBrands for being a promotion-only account. A significant proportion of their edits are apparently LLM-generated, including Special:Diff/1270862281, which included the text "Based on the sources you've shared, I can now provide a more accurate account:". — Newslinger talk 19:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dmitry Rogozin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See this discussion for background (now archived). Previously, an editor added content stating in wikivoice that the subject attended neo-Nazi marches and performed a Nazi salute. It was agreed that this should be removed because the sourcing was poor. Another new editor decided to reinstate this (after following me around). They cited the following sources for the statement about the Nazi salute: Politico, Washington Post opinion piece, dsnews.ua and news.pn (the last two sources were previously discussed). Is the sourcing sufficient to write in wikivoice that the subject performed a Nazi salute? Mellk (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post article (archive) links to this YouTube video when they wrote about him "giving neo-Nazi salutes".[1] Only the last five seconds are relevant, where he gives a nazi salute and then those around him do the same. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The others clearly gave a Nazi salute, although it seems he clenched his fist there. Then again, I am not sure if this is supposed to be some kind of attempt at plausible deniability. I found this post by ru:Проверено.Медиа, a fact-checking website, which says he "demonstrated a gesture similar to a ziga (only with a closed fist), to which his comrades responded with a completely canonical ziga sign". There are other images that purportedly show him sieg heiling but it is rated as false. Mellk (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politico and the WP are reliable sources, and they say it was a Nazi salute. Maybe "while at a neo-nazi rally he gave what has been described as a nazi salute", but with better wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:NEWSOPED so I do not think we can use the Washington Post opinion piece for statements of fact. Describing the Russian march as a neo-Nazi march is also POV. This was previously discussed at Talk:Alexei Navalny since Navalny was also a participant. Mellk (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoinJournalCorrection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding promotional content to Hussein al-Tahan. I have reverted their changes, but they keep reinstating the edits, claiming that the corruption charges against Hussein al-Tahan have been dismissed[2]. Since I do not have the ability to evaluate this claim nor the reliability of the sources they provided, I am seeking help here. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The information i have provided is not 'promotional content'

the current information on wikipedia are based on false accusations and alleged news. this can tarnish a persons reputation and is misrepresenting the former politician's image. this cannot be displaced on wikipedia as its false information. he has not arrested for corruption nor has he been charged. the court has dismissed the alleged accusation. please read this article from 2015. https://burathanews.com/arabic/news/256144 and also this http://www.mustakbal.net/content.php?id=252

please allow the changes i have made as they are all backed by evidence such as news outlet that supports the claims including images of hussein al-tahan at the scenes. https://nara.getarchive.net/media/hussein-al-tahan-left-governor-of-baghdad-and-maj-432bb9

"The Rusafa Court of Appeal acquitted former Baghdad Governor Hussein Al-Tahan of all charges against him on Tuesday.''

i will not accept false information to be displaced about al-Tahan as this information is not relevant to his time in office as the Governor of Baghdad. JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a requirement that article content be cited to published reliable sources - which almost nothing in your recent edits is. And you don't get to decide what is or isn't 'relevant'. If the specific charges were indeed dismissed, and this can be properly sourced the article should say so, but that doesn't give you license to rewrite the entire article to suit your own agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have cited the sources that states his innocence, the same way the alleged arrest has been cited. false information should not be displayed on wikipedia.

may i ask you, how have you ensured the alleged accusation is true? please provide the information you have. JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the article to a bare (unsourced) stub. It now says nothing about charges - or anything else really. Go away, find published sources directly supporting any statements you wish to add to the article, and we'll have something to talk about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i believe false information should not be displaced on a persons name as this is unfair and damaging to their reputation. I understand the importance of citing accurate information, i do not wish to add any false information, i am here to correct and if you please allow me to add further information regarding my subject. i will only add/ cite information that has supportive evidence to the claims.

may i please add (that will include direct links/ images ) news regarding my subject; Hussein Al-Tahan. i will only cover information regarding his time in office as its crucial to iraq's political history. this man was the first governor after the war, a very very important time in Baghdad time line. i ask of you to grant me permission to edit his profile.

thank you JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will be allowed to add absolutely nothing until you provide the necessary sources. Find them. List them here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction and Infrastructure Projects Al-Tahan's administration focused on rebuilding Baghdad's infrastructure, which had been severely damaged during the Iraq War. Notably, he inaugurated the Rustimiyah Bridge in February 2008, a significant project aimed at improving transportation and connectivity between Baghdad and the Mada'in Qada region. The bridge's completion was seen as a step toward revitalizing the city's infrastructure.- https://www.dvidshub.net/image/78362/baghdad-governor-opens-rustimiyah-bridge [02.22.2008]

multiple images provided showcasing the occasion. JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration with U.S. Forces

In January 2009, al-Tahan participated in the signing of a memorandum of understanding with U.S. military leaders. This agreement aimed to streamline the development and execution of infrastructure and services projects funded by the U.S. in Baghdad. The collaboration underscored a period of cooperation between Iraqi provincial authorities and coalition forces.

https://nara.getarchive.net/media/hussein-al-tahan-left-governor-of-baghdad-and-maj-432bb9 [14/01/2009] JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a bridge and signing a memorandum isn't much to build an article around. Is there no in-depth discussion of his time in office? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you have absolutely understood why im adding this information, during 2003 Iraq revolution / the Saddam Hussein's regime had ended, the city was under ciaos and there was absolutely no democracy in the region. Al-tahan was the very iraqi to be elected in power. there was minimal outlet news covering the work he did to rebuild Baghdad because they had just been invaded/ been through war. opening a bridge at the time was a huge celebration to the Iraqi people. it was a way of connecting cities, and residential areas. we have to understand the context time and place these articles were written in.

Al-tahan did far more than this which is why biography deserves more than what it is right now. JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion of what this biography 'deserves' is of no relevance whatsoever. If appropriate sources can be found, content can be added. Without them, multiple core Wikipedia policies require that unsourced content be removed. This isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. i hope you can add context during his time in office from 2005-2009 and how impactful his work was to the history of rebuilding Baghdad.

please elaborate what you mean by appropriate source. I'm happy to comply, if it means adding the gaps missing to Baghdad's history, specifically from 2005-2015. thank you.

another source covered his visit during an extremely dangerous time in Baghdad, al-tahan was able to bring people together and provide safety for his people.

'This was not just another visitor to the formerly embattled county of Abu Ghraib, located to the west of Iraq's capital. Rather, the VIP was the first politician from Iraq's capital to step foot in the now relatively secure region.

More than just a media day for the governor of Baghdad, Hussein al-Tahan, the event was loaded with signs of significant reconciliation between once fiercely opposed sect members.' https://www.dvidshub.net/news/11882/reconciliation-governor-baghdad-meets-abu-ghraib-leaders JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on what basis are you declining this information to be displaced on his biography.

every politician on wikipedia have multiple sources highlighting their time in office. regardless of what you may consider major or minor. time and context needs to be JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to tell you again. Anything added to an article needs to be directly supported by a reliable source. We are not going to add a single word about anything being 'impactful' without a source that says exactly that. And frankly, a source directly connected with the US military is hardly best placed to give neutral commentary on the meeting they describe, since they had a direct interest in promoting it as successful. We could cite it for the meeting taking place, but that is about all. We need better sources, and more, if we are going to have anything more than a stub. If the sources don't exist, the biography will have to remain that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to avoid misrepresentation and misleading information.

you can edit this script instead.

Hussein al-Tahan (Arabic: حسين الطحان) is an Iraqi politician who served as the Governor of Baghdad from 2005 to 2009 https://burathanews.com/arabic/news/16835. His tenure occurred during a critical period of reconstruction and security challenges following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq https://www.dvidshub.net/image/144485/iraqi-us-leaders-baghdad-sign-memorandum-understanding. Al-Tahan played a significant role in the province's reconstruction and reconciliation efforts during a tumultuous period in Iraq's history.

In response to recent reports circulated by various media outlets regarding the alleged arrest of former Baghdad Governor Dr. Hussein al-Tahhan, Dr. al-Tahhan has publicly denied these claims. He clarified that he was not arrested at his residence last Friday, as suggested by sources affiliated with political factions supporting former Governor Salah Abdul Razzaq. "The Rusafa Court of Appeal acquitted former Baghdad Governor Hussein Al-Tahan of all charges against him on Tuesday.''

According to sources such as Buratha News and Mustakbal.net , Al-Tahan was found innocent, and the accusations were politically motivated rather than based on credible evidence. He maintained that the rumors damaged his reputation but ultimately reaffirmed his commitment to public service and accountability. https://burathanews.com/arabic/news/256144 . http://www.mustakbal.net/content.php?id=252 JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to add/edit someone's "profile." 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoinJournalCorrection has begun adding more promotional content to the article, and I have reached my third revert for the day. If you can, please add this article to your watchlists. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd missed that: JoinJournalCorrection, if you add any more badly-sourced/unsourced or frankly confusing (i.e. saying that charges were dropped without saying what they were in the first place) material to the article, I am going to report you, and request you be blocked from editing the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have page-blocked JoinJournalCorrection indefinitely from Hussein al-Tahan. Bishonen | tålk 22:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

i suggest you remove the alleged charges that are falsely advertised. he was not arrested, you cannot add false information on a biography. this is my last warning to you, remove the false information you have edited back.

you stated that 'I have reduced the article to a bare (unsourced) stub. It now says nothing about charges' which is also a false claim you have made.

i have cited the sources that states his innocence from a 2015 article that covered what happened in court. https://burathanews.com/arabic/news/256144

whereas the cite that stated he was arrested was from 2014, ALSO THE LINK FOR THIS CITATION IS NOT AVAILABLE. EROR 404 shows up. you are obliged to update the information.

JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The material relating to the charges should clearly NOT have been added back, and I have removed it again. As for your 'last warning', you are in no position to issue warnings to anyone. And frankly, I have no idea why you see this as so urgent anyway, given that the article has been getting less than one view a day.[3] We clearly need to sort out the 'charges' question, but nothing else is in the slightest bit urgent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't take much to use the wayback machine and find the source of the original url and not the redirect. https://worldakhbar.com/middle-east/iraq/16573.html and run that through Google translate. --Bamyers99 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we now have a source. That doesn't alter the fact that we also appear to have a source for the charges later being dropped. I removed all the content regarding charges until we can sort this out properly, as I made clear in my edit summary, and on the talk page. Simply ignoring that and reverting was very ill-advised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed that you have added the aljazera article (2014) regarding this matter (it was not the final conclusion), please updated in sequence, this article from 2015 following the same court case https://burathanews.com/arabic/news/256144 ( you can also use google translate ) under his profile. this article was the most up to date which states his innocence's, he was released on the same day as the alleged 'arrested' .

I will not be editing or altering his profile, I simply would like you to take this information into account and update the profile to accurate information

thank you JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The aljazira article says absolutely nothing about the charges - I cited if for al-Tahan's predecessor being assassinated, and nothing else. And please stop pestering us to update the article. We have contradictory sources, and before we add anything, we need to ensure we get it right. THERE IS NO URGENCY OVER THIS while the article says nothing regarding the charges. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

may i know why you are denying the edit i have suggested? despite it not promoting any violence nor inaccurate information. all information is provided through news media outlets which in Al-tahan's position as a formor politician. news media outlets are considered a credited source.

also, Al-Tahan's predecessor being assasinated has no link to Al-Tahan therefor it has no place to be displaced under his biography.

'Hussein al-Tahan (Arabic: حسين الطحان) is an Iraqi politician who served as the Governor of Baghdad from 2005 to 2009 https://burathanews.com/arabic/news/16835. His tenure occurred during a critical period of reconstruction and security challenges following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq https://www.dvidshub.net/image/144485/iraqi-us-leaders-baghdad-sign-memorandum-understanding. Al-Tahan played a significant role in the province's reconstruction and reconciliation efforts during a tumultuous period in Iraq's history.'

what makes the above statement not acceptable?

i appreciate your input and clear communication, thank you once again. JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told that article content must be directly supported by sources cited. The sources you cite DO NOT SUPPORT THE TEXT. The first says absolutely nothing about the dates of his term of office. The second says nothing about any 'significant role' etc. Any more of this nonsense and I am going to request that you be blocked from Wikipedia entirely, on competence grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i appreciate your input, please understand im having a peaceful conversation with you regarding a simple edit.

below you can see a list of formor governors of Baghdad, Al-Tahan's name is on the list. 2005 Iraqi governorate elections

you can cite this to his profile as i can see it states that citation is needed to provide more context/ citation.

i assure you, i have provided clear sources that state the date and year of Al-Tahan during his time in office. the sources i have provided indicates what he was doing between the year 2005-2009. how is this not clear.

please do not dispute this further. JoinJournalCorrection (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not cite Wikipedia articles as sources. And the article you link cites no source regarding al-Tahan (or anything else much, really - it needs dealing with). Stop arguing, find sources that directly support every statement you wish to add to the article. Nothing is going to be added without proper sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please run a eye over Mohamed Amersi#Controversies? I'm far too conflicted to edit there myself, but if nothing else some of the wording seems over-excited. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the wording there could definitely use toning down, but otherwise I think it's fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's great. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently got into an argument with @Sangdeboeuf: a couple of days ago regarding the real name and birthdate of Bonnie Blue (actress) at both User talk:Launchballer and Talk:Bonnie Blue (actress), though purposefully left it a couple of days so I could post here with fresh eyes. Courtesy pings also to @UndercoverClassicist, Trillfendi, Diademchild, and GhulamIslam:.

• Sangdeboeuf argues that her real name should not be included as no context is lost through its removal. I argue that, per WP:BLPNAME, we only consider that when her name has not been widely published (which it has, in the BBC, SCMP, Telegraph, and many others) or has been concealed (which a) is not necessarily the same as using a stage name as plenty of people have one and are open about their real name and b) shouldn't be a good enough reason to ignore multiple high-quality reliable sources anyway).
• Sangdeboeuf also argues that to include her full birthday counts as WP:SYNTH, whereas I consider that WP:CALC applies (her 14 May Instagram post saying "my birthday today" is WP:ABOUTSELF). WP:DOB says OR shouldn't be used to extrapolate the date of birth, but CALC is not OR.
• Much less pressing, but I may as well ask while I'm here; does her single-paragraph Early life section really need its own section given that MOS:OVERSECTION advises against clutter?--Launchballer 16:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people may be open about their real names, but Bonnie Blue hasn't been. Their name has been intentionally concealed, at least where the public is concerned. How is this not a good enough reason to follow the advice of Wikipedia policy?

Articles should mainly cite sources focused on the subject at hand. The article in The Telegraph isn't primarily about the person known as Bonnie Blue, instead focusing on a gambling website (Stake) that was investigated for using a video of Blue in an advertisement, possibly without their knowledge or consent.

The South China Morning Post article contains apparently no original reporting, since it mostly paraphrases other sources including Cosmopolitan along with podcasts and tabloids such as The Daily Mail and The Sun, while also citing various anonymous friends and classmates. As part of their "Style" section, it's a pretty clear example of human interest reporting, which is considered less reliable than straight news.

I haven't looked at all the sources linked on the talk page, but the ones cited in the article tend to only mention their legal name in passing, for example BBC News, which states near the end of the article that Bonnie Blue – whose real name is Tia Billinger – tried to break the world record for sex with the largest number of men in 12 hours. I'm not seeing how the name adds anything significant, and WP:BLPNAME specifically advises against giving too much weight to the brief appearance of names in news stories.

Routine calculations should have consensus that they are a meaningful reflection of the sources. That's a bit vague, but I don't think it justifies combining the day from one source with a year that has itself been calculated from an age given in a different source. Those are two different calculations that border on improper synthesis. Even if the calculation is correct, there are privacy concerns given that neither the subject themselves nor reliable, independent sources have publicized the full DOB. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although your right that a calculated birthdate isn't SYNTH, it also clearly demonstrates that the date isn't widely published as per DOB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For interested editors: RfC started on the talk page for including her real name in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns Regarding Heritage Information and Terminology I would like to raise concerns about inaccuracies in the article regarding Brooke's heritage. The current content includes both incorrect and potentially misleading information. To clarify: Brooke is of Guyanese and Dominican heritage, through his maternal and paternal grandparents. The article should be updated to reflect this in order to maintain biographical accuracy. Additionally, the current use of "Dominica" in the text is incorrect in this context. While Dominica is a country, the correct demonym (nationality) is "Dominican". This distinction is important for clarity and accuracy. I have attempted to make these corrections several times, providing clear and constructive explanations in the edit summaries. However, my edits have been reverted, and I’ve since been accused of vandalism despite engaging in good faith. I’m raising this here to invite discussion and consensus so the article can be improved in line with Wikipedia’s standards on verifiability and neutral point of view. Thank you. Crescentsista (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the grammar issue ("Dominica descent" → "Dominican descent"). The cited source does not mention any connection to Guyana; can you provide a reliable source supporting that Norton-Cuffy is of Guyanese descent? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am Brooke's morher. Do you want me to provide proof of this! Crescentsista (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The citation should be removed because it's inaccurate . Crescentsista (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Regarding Brooke's Heritage and External Source

I’ve reviewed the cited source and noticed that it lists Brooke’s nationality alongside a British and Dominican flag, which is inaccurate. Given that Brooke has never visited Dominica and has had no recent connection with his Dominican family outside of his father due to estrangement, this may be misleading in terms of representing his heritage.

I will be contacting the source directly to request a correction. In the meantime, I believe the Wikipedia entry should either be updated to reflect verified and accurate heritage information (i.e., Guyanese and Dominican descent via grandparents), or the misleading claim should be removed pending clarification.

Could someone advise on the appropriate process or point of contact for addressing concerns like this? I’m happy to work collaboratively to ensure the article complies with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and neutrality.

Thank you. Crescentsista (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage and nationality are not interchangeable, and this representation may lead to incorrect assumptions about Brooke’s identity. Crescentsista (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article does not say he has Dominican nationality, so that is not an issue. The issue is that you have repeatedly failed to provide any reliable sources which show is is also of Guyanese descent. GiantSnowman 09:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is an issue. As Crescentsista pointed out, our source says he has Dominican nationality, and does not say he is of Dominican descent. If the source is reliable, then we should say he has Dominican nationality. If it is not, then we should not be adding that he has Dominican descent. Our current claim seems no better sourced than her own. LordDiscord (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I completely understand the importance of reliable sourcing on Wikipedia. However, I’d like to respectfully point out that I am Brooke’s mother, which makes me a primary source on matters such as his place of birth and heritage — especially when the current cited source contains factual errors.

For example, the source claims he has Dominican nationality, which is not accurate. Brooke does not hold Dominican nationality — he is of Dominican and Guyanese descent through his paternal and maternal grandparents. This is an important distinction, and I’ve already contacted the website in question to request a correction.

I’m not attempting to edit the article myself, as I understand the conflict of interest guidelines, but I am providing firsthand clarification and am willing to offer verification if necessary. I hope we can work together to reflect accurate, verifiable information in the article.

Thank you again for engaging with this constructively. Crescentsista (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam sengar started her career 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poonam sengar (talk • contribs) 12:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear exactly what you are asking here. Are you saying that Poonam Singar did not appear in the 1998 movie Srimathi Vellostha, when sources say she did. Your edit request on the talk page has already been turned down, so unless you can provide some reliable sources that state her career started in 2009, there is nothing we can do here, as there is no BLP violation. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That first source you list merely mentions an actor named "Poonam", no last name given; we have multiple other actors with that first name with their own Wikipedia pages, so it's clearly not a unique name. The second is WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, which is not a reliable source for cast data. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of our sources says she “made her debut with Paata”. Which we put as 2008. LordDiscord (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But another source says she was in Siva Rama Raju which would have been 2002. LordDiscord (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And this source says she appeared in Siva Rama Raju, which was released in 2002. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that article is from January 2008, and is talking about Paata in the past and her having made other, lower budget films since. So our dating about Paata seems incorrect. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much no sources and barely meets any standards. — TheThomanski | t | c | 21:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, probably should be stubbed or WP:TNT. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For two years, antagonists who dislike President Fithian have been attempting to use his wikipedia bio for political means, adding highly opinionated commentary that presents their point of view but that do not legitimately represent facts or the breadth of the issues. They cite inaccurate coverage to support their skewed narrative. This has been true regarding edits to the personal section of the bio as well as a "controversies" section they continue to add after it has been removed do to the libelous, inaccurate, opinionated orientation of the content. For some reason, when I delete this content that VERY clearly violates Wikipedia standards, it continues to reappear in various forms. Now, I am being told that I am being blocked from editing. Which is ridiculous!

How can we stop this ongoing manipulation? It is becoming more and more urgent.

Thank you in advance for your kind assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.115.102 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) it doesn't look like to me you are blocked. (2) please stop edit warring. (3) please open a discussion on the talk page outlining your concerns. (4) I agree that it is poorly sourced, two of the sources are student newspapers; not what I consider high-quality sources for a BLP, and the third is a primary source. And this phrase - union busting and bad faith negotiations with Clark University Grad Students Union - implies Fithnian was directly responsible for those accusations, but the source (a student newspaper), only mentions Fithian in this context: "President Fithian and I are thrilled… that we have reached a tentative agreement". Don't know, don't care, what the motivation is behind the edits, but it reeks of OR/SYNTH poorly sourced material. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article with much stronger sources to establish WP:WEIGHT to consider whatever controversy. Fithian seems to be more in the news protesting the current administration's impact on his school which may be inviting trolling pushback. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping, @Sushidude21!: Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two Jennifer Abbotts, both documentarians. The one our article is about was born in 1965 (we say) and by all indications is still alive. The article is getting hammered with edits conflating her with the Jennifer Abbott who was killed in London this month at the age of 69 (born in 1955, in July according to memorial pages), who also used the name Sarah Steinberg. This Daily Telegraph article is the best I've found on the Jennifer Abbott who has died. I've added hidden notes and a talk page section, but the article could use people watching it for further well intentioned and incorrect updates. (It's also woefully under-referenced.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Norton-Cuffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the article says this individual is of Dominican descent. It is sourced to a reliable source, although that suggests that he is of dual nationality. I don't think much spins on that; I know the website, it's just how they show descent. We have an editor (@Crescentsista:) claiming to be the subject's mother and saying that he is of Dominican and Guyanese descent, but no source has been provided, despite multiple requests, to support this. Further guidance welcome. GiantSnowman 09:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see above #Brooke Norton-Cuffy page. Nthep (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it would have been polite if @Crescentsista: had notified me that she had posted here already... GiantSnowman 09:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify — I’m not simply claiming to be Brooke’s mother; I’ve already stated that I’m willing to provide evidence to verify this, if required. I’m not sure who else would be motivated to correct these personal inaccuracies if not a close family member.

I’m also new to Wikipedia and wasn’t sure where or how to post initially, so I’ve been doing my best to navigate the system and contribute constructively. I appreciate your patience as I try to address this issue the right way. Crescentsista (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crescentsista: - it appears that Norton-Cuffy has a verified Instagram account, so the easiest solution would be for him to update his profile to say he is of Dominican and Guyanese descent. Then that could be used per WP:ABOUTSELF. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the suggestion — but I’d like to kindly challenge the idea that Brooke should update his Instagram profile to validate information for this article.

Brooke is third-generation British. Both his father and I were born in the UK, and while he has heritage links through his grandparents (my mother, now 86, being one), he does not personally identify with either Guyanese or Dominican heritage. That’s entirely his choice, and it doesn’t make his identity or biography any less valid.

His Instagram, like most people’s, reflects how he chooses to present himself — not necessarily as a source for encyclopedic detail or cultural classification.

I hope we can rely on factual accuracy rather than requiring someone to frame their identity a certain way on social media for the sake of verification.

Thanks again for engaging on this. Crescentsista (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then your only other alternative is to find a reliable source that supports your assertion. As far as I am concerned, the Personal life section should be removed. A single sentence is not DUE for an entire section, especially when the information is trivial and irrelevant, and would not result in a loss to our readers of having a better understanding of the subject. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can’t believe I’m having to explain this again. A “reliable source” — from where, exactly? Brooke has never been asked about his heritage in any professional capacity, so expecting a published source on this is unrealistic.

As I’ve already mentioned, he is third-generation British, and the previous information about his background was factually incorrect. That’s all I was trying to have removed — and thankfully, it now has been.

At this point, I genuinely don’t see how there could be a more direct or reliable source than his own mother when it comes to these personal details. Crescentsista (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologises I don't believe that I had read your message in its entirety. I actually couldn't agree with you more.

Thanks for your contribution. Crescentsista (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime an editor wants to add or change content in an article, the burden is on those to provide a reliable source to verify the addition or changes. And quite frankly, I have no idea where you can find one, but to be clear, we do not use word of mouth from a person's "own mother" as a reliable source, unless your statement has been published in a reliable source. I offered my advice and help to resolve the issue, and that's all I can do. Have a nice day. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway I agree with you and removed it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good call. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pechmerle: accused me of at a minimum, a violation of NPOV and improper for BLP [4] for this edit to the Francesca Gino article. For context, Gino was accused of data fabrication, and after a lengthy investigation, Harvard released an over 1000 page report, finding that the allegations of data fabrication were true and it was improbable that anyone else but Gino was responsible for them, and put her on leave in 2023. A few months ago it belatedly decided it to fire her. I do not view the edit to be a violation of NPOV or BLP, given that assertion that Gino is responsible for the fabrication is extensively supported by evidence and Harvard fired her over it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the article's talk page, as well as yours and Pechmerle's and I don't see that any discussion has occurred. Have I missed something or is this the first venue you've sought? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good secondary source to support the idea that the allegations of data fabrication are true? Better than Harvard's own report, I think. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing Hemiauchenia personally of anything. I made the change mentioned because there was no source cited for a statement that the data fabrications alleged against Ms. Gino have been proven true. And I have not readily found any secondary RS where it is stated that the allegations have been proven true. As a subsequent edit has noted, Harvard has revoked Gino's tenure but has not publicly stated why it did so. I just want this BLP to remain neutral in tone.~~ Pechmerle (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPF applies here and there needs to be strong secondary sources that confirm that there was fabrication beyond allegations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail, in my view, needs to be summarized better. As is, the allegations, investigation, lawsuit and co-authors sections comprise 70% of the article content. Reads more like a newspaper article, rather than an encyclopedia. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until today Shane Jacobsen was a redirect to Shane Jacobson, a well-known and prolific Australian actor. Fairly harmless although most unlikely mis-spelling. The problem is that Shane JacobSEN is a living American actor, mentioned in several articles. My edit has been reverted several times. I'm sure there must be a provision for stubs which serve no real purpose except to obviate misdirection. Doug butler (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue, the redirect had no incoming links to it, so there are no links to be changed. There's now a hatnote directing readers to the Australian Shane. Not sure what more anyone could want. Nthep (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what makes Shane Jacobsen a notable actor, though. The edit was reverted because it was unlikely the stub article would survive a deletion process. Many of the articles I have found about Jacobsen online were in fact misspellings of Jacobson's name. -- Reconrabbit 19:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Engaging in anti-party activities” is a serious allegation. The only cited source is apparently a SKM party paper, which is a primary, partisan source — not considered independent or neutral by Wikipedia standards. No legal case, public investigation, or independent report has verified that he engaged in such activities. Wikipedia’s own policy on Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) forbids this kind of claim unless proven by reliable, secondary sources. 2402:E280:2215:464:AD04:8524:A8A9:5B26 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated it to say "alleged" since that was what was in the source. Leaving the rest for more experienced editors. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editors, I'm Robin and I work for Beutler Ink. I made a request on the Matthew Miller (spokesperson) Talk page that I think addresses a significant neutrality issue in this BLP. Currently, the article focuses solely on criticism Miller received while acting as Department of State spokesperson, but other events and statements that are covered in reliable sources are not discussed at all. I think this creates a WP:PROPORTION issue and makes the article less neutral than it could be. My request would add content related to other policy areas and statements Miller made that also received coverage in reliable sources. Any feedback is appreciated! BINK Robin (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]