Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

• Talk:Slender_Man_stabbing#Are_we_certain_that_Geyser_identifies_as_a_male?

I would like to see more people from the community join the discussion as this is an glaring BLP issue which Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender identity does not seem to have any clear answer to--Trade (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to specify when they started using He/Him pronouns? Considering when they were arrested and the fact that they still used She/Her pronouns at the time it's probably best to have a line or a section about this change rather than switching all of their pronouns to He/Him. I find this can become confusing without noting on the page the change in identification. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, MOS:GENDERID is pretty clear on that; unless there is a specific statement from the subject, the pronouns remain consistent throughout; tran status is viewed as a revelation of something that was always true, rather than a change. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context it started started the 9 January 2025 according to the court Trade (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering MOS:GENDERID I think the pronouns on the page should be changed to reflect their identity. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted back to the earlier version which used female pronouns, since there are BLPPRIVACY concerns.

As noted by NBC, Wisconsin's Department of Health Services noted that Geyser is considered a patient and therefore protected by patient privacy laws, limiting its ability to comment on her case. The Department of Corrections is similarly limited, it added.

Until there is something provided by Geyser that refers to how they want to publicly be identified as, then it is safe to assume that something mentioned to a doctor (Hessler, at the 4:30 mark here) in 2024 should be considered a privacy matter and the advice under BLPPRIVACY (The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified.) be respected.

Awshort (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @MjolnirPants: -WP:BLPRESTORE applies with material removed on BLP grounds. That isn't 'me complaining', that's policy. There are privacy concerns with the material, and it should be addressed. But whether through a RfC or discussion, disputed BLP material stays out pending a consensus.

Awshort (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not reading my comments, are you incapable of understanding them, or do you simply not give a shit? I explicitly asked you not to ping me again, and laid out exactly what my contribution would be going forward. Also, WP:BLPRESTORE explicitly says that you should have gotten a consensus before restoring MOS:GENDERID violating material, and the participation in this thread is against you. If you can't engage with good faith, we can take this to ANI where you can attempt to justify your behavior. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments just fine; I pinged you since you restored the material that I had removed due to blp privacy concerns. I was unaware that you had asked not to be pinged after you had completed the edit mentioned above, so that's my fault, but the underlying blprestore concern still stands.

The material was added in by Roxy a little over a week ago, that doesn't mean there is an explicit consensus for it to stay in the article. And I'm sorry, but the Manual of Style guideline doesn't override BLP policy, especially when it comes to patient privacy concerns and the possibility that we are essentially outing someone who told something to a doctor.

There isn't anything that is lost by waiting for a more definitive statement by Geyser (or her attorney, even) based on how they self identify that respects their privacy and is a more accurate statement of how they presently identify.

If you feel I haven't been engaging in good faith, then by all means bring it to ANI. You asked not to be contacted, so I'm kind of at a loss on how I can communicate with someone that doesn't want to deal with me.

Awshort (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that you had asked not to be pinged after you had completed the edit mentioned above I told you not to ping me before I made that edit, and you acknowledged it before you then acknowledged that there is no consensus for your edit warring and then went on to ping me.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. The way you're behaving, you're liable to get sanctioned if the consensus doesn't go your way, because you're actively edit warring to restore BLP-violating content. Even if the consensus does go your way, you still might catch a page block over this. I don't know why you're so vested in this that you need to make absolutely ridiculous arguments, go out of your way to be abrasive and are willing to violate our policies by your own admission to get it done, but holy crap, touch some grass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being abrasive, after being told to touch grass? Seriously man, dial back the rudeness. I'm not vested in anything, I'm just going by policies, and trying to respect someone's privacy. Nothing more, nothing less. And I never once said I would ask going to violate any policy to 'get it done'. Rather than launching into personal attacks, why not acknowledge what is lost by waiting for a statement from Geyser so we can have correct information in the article. Or don't, since I also would rather not have any interactions with you based on how you have responded to me both here and on the actual talk page.

Awshort (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of uninvolved people reading this can someone list sources to support the claim of Geyser being transgender? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This link (paywalled original, non-paywalled), based off of this court testimony of a different psychologist saying what another doctor had stated (that he had diagnosed Geyser with gender dysphoria), and Geyser had previously identified as non-binary without pronouns in 2023. The therapist in the CourtTV testimony states Geyser told their care staff they identified as male at the time.

It's unknown how they self identify, as well as if they essentially were ready to "come out" as transgender themselves.

Awshort (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The court testimony isn't usable as a source but that source seems fine to confirm that Geyser identifies as transgender. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficiently, alas. The paper is saying only that the doctor said that. The doctor’s testimony, even if reliably reported, is a WP:BLPSPS, not usable for statements about another living person. — Nat Gertler (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? If something self-published is then published by an RS it is not self-published anymore. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source did not publish that the individual is trans. They published that the doctor said the person is trans. It's a reliable source for the fact that the doctor said that; it's not a reliable source for the substance of the doctor's comment. (If may be easier to analyze the concept if you think of the example of the news reporting that Trump said something.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all missed the "block party" this week and last. I filed an ANI complaint[1], then a few days later I and third editor got 24 hours in the penalty box for edit-warring, the page got WP:GOLDLOCKed, and a good time was had by all. The admin reverted the article to an "antebellum" state[2] but as this was the last preferred version of the now-indeffed user, some BLP issues remain. The page is unlocked now, and I'm taking a big step back, hoping some uninvolved editors could please take a look at the WP:BLPCRIME problems and my proposed solutions on the article talk page[3]. Thanks and sorry about the mess. BBQboffin^{grill me} 20:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding page auto-archive. Issues raised on Talk:Carroll Fife#BLP violations needing to be resolved have not been acted upon (BLP violations are supposed to be removed immediately) and there has been no outside editor comment. BBQboffin^{grill me} 22:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been written by Hadrien Laroche himself. The reference he gives for a quote from Jacques Derrida praising his work is a dead end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathilde Th-St (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by someone claiming to be Hadrien Laroche, but that user's last edit of the page was in 2012 here and the page has been improved since then by many other editors. If you'd like to discuss additional improvements to the article, the place to do that would be the article's talk page: Talk:Hadrien Laroche. BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the subject of the above entry. It has a lot of factual errors and is very, very incomplete. I tried to edit it the other day and I changed the image, too, but it reverted back to the original incorrect text after a day or two. I do understand that subjects aren't supposed to contribute to their own entries, but this doesn't even have my correct date of birth! I never google myself, so I was unaware of just how bad this is. Can I please get permission to edit this entry or perhaps work with a volunteer editor to make the changes in the correct manner? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metzger.richard (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The poor placement of refs within the article makes it hard to tell what's supported and what's not. It seems some text is not actually supported by any refs (like the WP:DOB that I removed), while others might have partial support in one of several refs at the end of the same or next paragraph. Simultaneous WP:V for several refs and many claims might be best done on a desktop, which means tomorrow for me. JFHJr (㊟) 23:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've scrubbed the article after reviewing the valid and verifiable sources; I revised my own edit regarding the subject's POB, but left DOB unstated because the best we have right now is a stated (for interview) age in an old piece. I also proposed deletion because it's not clear this subject is notable. Only 2 of 3 refs currently provide WP:SIGCOV. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Metzger.richard, if you know of any reliable sources unrelated to you that have lent you significant biographical coverage, here or the talkpage would be a great place to let us know. Please, no résumé stuff. Once a source is qualified, editors other than you can decide whether and how to include anything it really says. JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help JFHJr, there are a few that might help here: https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/article/weird-inc/ and https://infinitethought.substack.com/p/richard-metzgers-magick-show

In the text that I wrote which was redacted, I mentioned that I was the doorman at a nightclub in NYC where a prefame Vin Diesel worked as the bouncer. Here is a citation that he worked there.

https://www.industriamovies.com/feature/like-think-survivalist-vin-diesel/#:~:text=There%20are%20so%20many%20stories,'%20It%20was%20pretty%20bizarre.

And here is something written by me, yes, but published by a reputable source that Wikipedia uses all the time:

https://dangerousminds.net/comments/1980s_nightclub_invitations_from_downtown_new_york/#:~:text=Out%20of%20this%20milieu%2C%20stars,m%20drawing%20a%20complete%20blank!

The name of the company was The Disinformation Company Ltd. My actual DOB is October 25, 1965. There are a LOT of other (somewhat minor, but still) mistakes on the page. ~2025-39050-42 (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati was a good find. I added it to the article without underpinning any content (Further reading), but I did provide all the markup it needs to be referenced, if it can be. Substacks are subpar, and blogs, promoters, and your own associated domain are unqualified because they aren't secondary resources. Even if they're used (rightly or wrongly) elsewhere on WP. Please also see WP:PRIMARY. JFHJr (㊟) 04:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been operating with you in good faith that you are the subject of the article. The least you could do, please, is make sure you're logged in when you edit or comment on Wikipedia. If you want your DOB as you state here, it would help if you were logged in and confirmed it at the article talkpage somewhere. Otherwise, you might see WP:VRT for how to confirm your identity. I know I already recommended a lot of reading but that's one more. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An anon opposed the WP:PROD reasoning that 2 sources alone can establish notability (WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO). That's nonsense. This article is now at AFD here. JFHJr (㊟) 00:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Peter Levashov contains a problematic passage with a source that directly contradicts the claim it supposedly supports.

Current text: "In December 2024 during an interview with Gazeta.ru, Levashov stated that he has never had any dealings with United States intelligence agencies."

Problem: The cited source's headline states "Famous Russian Hacker Petr Levashov Turns Out to Be an FBI Agent" — this is the **opposite** of what the text claims. The source presents a lawyer's opinion as fact, not Levashov's actual statement from an interview.

This is:

1. A WP:SYNTH violation — the source does not support the text
2. A WP:BLP concern — misrepresenting a living person's statements
3. Potentially defamatory — implying someone is an intelligence agent based on third-party speculation

Requested action: Remove or correct this passage, and verify with a source that actually contains Levashov's interview statements.

Levashov.peter (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Levashov&diff=1318264128&oldid=1315651922 Levashov.peter (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the text contradicts the source in the reference, which also isn't an interview. It does however state that court documents state the article subject (which, judging by your username, is you?) admitted to working with the FBI in the past. I have no idea on the reliability of Russian media so the question would be if Gazeta.ru is a reliable secondary source or not for the statement.

Awshort (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that 'court documents state admission to working with FBI' is false — no such statement exists in any court documents. I challenge you to provide the actual court document with this claim, because it doesn't exist.

The Gazeta.ru article is based entirely on unverified claims from a single individual who had personal motivations to make such statements. Russian media, particularly in politically sensitive cases, often publishes unverified claims without fact-checking.

Per Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources: a source making a factual claim should be verifiable. The Gazeta.ru article makes claims that are directly contradicted by actual court records. If someone claims 'court documents say X' — the court documents themselves should be cited, not a tabloid interpretation.

Additionally, using a source that the article subject has explicitly disputed, when that source cannot be independently verified against actual court records, violates WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) which requires higher standards for potentially defamatory content.

Levashov.peter (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect, reliable secondary source analysis of court documents are required under BLP. We never cite the documents themselves per WP:BLPPRIMARY. However the secondary sources do need to be reliable and if there's good reason to doubt the court documents exist then the source should not be used. The subject disputing a source is of limited relevance. If it's a reliable source than they should be willing to issue a correction of the subject is able to demonstrate the source is clearly wrong eg because the court documents don't exist. Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've actually made my point for me. You state: "if there's good reason to doubt the court documents exist then the source should not be used."

That's exactly the situation here. The Gazeta.ru article claims court documents contain a specific statement. I am telling you, as the subject of those court documents with direct access to them, that no such statement exists. This isn't me "disputing the interpretation" — this is me stating the cited court documents literally do not contain what the source claims they contain.

The burden of proof should be on those wanting to keep defamatory content, not on the subject to prove a negative. Can anyone produce the actual court document showing this claim? If not, you have "good reason to doubt" per your own standard.

Regarding WP:BLPPRIMARY — this policy exists to prevent cherry-picking from primary sources. It does not mean Wikipedia can cite a secondary source making false claims about primary documents when the primary documents are publicly available and contradict the secondary source.

I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I'm asking: where is the evidence that this court document exists?

Levashov.peter (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call that case into question I'd say. I haven't read the whole gazeta.ru article yet, but it looks like the relevant passages refer to a court case in the United States? To quote the gazeta.ru article:

Кошкина задержали в Калифорнии в сентябре 2019 года по обвинению в создании и поддержке сервиса Сrypt4u для маскировки вредоносного ПО. (translation: Koshkin was arrested in California in September 2019 on charges of creating and maintaining the Crypt4u service for disguising malware.)

В суде по делу Кошкина Левашов рассказал, что начал работать с ФБР еще в 2018 году, спустя несколько месяцев после экстрадиции в США. Выдержки из материалов суда по делу Кошкина в 2021 году опубликовали различные СМИ. (translation: In the Koshkin trial, Levashov testified that he began working with the FBI back in 2018, several months after his extradition to the United States. Excerpts from the Koshkin trial documents were published by various media outlets in 2021.)

In that second quote gazeta.ru added a hyperlink to the word "опубликовали" (English: "published") as a reference to some media outlets having published excerpts from the trial documents. And that's where things might get tricky BLP-wise. The link is https://en.vijesti.me/world-a/globus/582319/How-a-convicted-Russian-cybercriminal-made-money-by-abetting-the-FBI. If you follow that link, you'll see 2 red flags:

1. Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate — gazeta.ru is referencing a AI-translation of an article from a different media outlet. They are not referencing the article itself. If they are actually relying on the AI-translation to make the court document claims then we need to be wary of hallucinations and mistranslations.
2. The original article (which got AI-translated) was published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty which is a problematic source, particularly due to its connections to United States intelligence agencies, see WP:RFE/RL.

If that is really what gazeta.ru is relying on, then I'd agree that there's a problem with the claims made.

Aside from that, the gazeta.ru article reports on the opinion of a lawyer. But an opinion is not a fact, and one would need to check whether a (random?) lawyer's opinion is wp:due for inclusion in the article.

And as for checking the court documents, aren't US court documents being made public? Shouldn't it be possible to check them regarding the claims? Nakonana (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "lawyer's opinion"

Important clarification: Mr. Naskovets is NOT a lawyer. He has no legal education, no bar license, and has never practiced law. In the United States, falsely representing oneself as an attorney is actually a crime (unauthorized practice of law) in most states.

Yet Gazeta.ru presents his statements as "lawyer's opinion" (мнение адвоката), which is factually false. This raises serious questions about the article's editorial standards and fact-checking.

So we have:

1. A source (Gazeta.ru) citing AI-translated content from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (a problematic source per WP:RFE/RL)

2. The same source presenting opinions of a non-lawyer as "lawyer's opinion"

3. Claims about court documents that cannot be verified against actual records

This is exactly the kind of poorly sourced, potentially defamatory content that WP:BLP is designed to prevent.

To answer your question about US court documents — yes, federal court documents are generally public via PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). Anyone can verify whether the claimed statements exist. The fact that no one has produced these actual documents, while citing AI-translated articles and fake lawyers, speaks for itself.

Levashov.peter (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to verify whether he's a lawyer or not. The gazeta.ru article says Бизнес-менеджер и юрист из компании Sharova Law Firm Дмитрий Насковец (translation: the Business manager and jurist of Sharova Law Firm Dmitry Naskovets), but he isn't listed as a jurist on the law firms website[4] even though the website is going as far as listing their legal assistants, not just their lawyers. In a 2023 interview[5] he said Моя первая работа здесь — помощник адвоката. (translation: My first job here was that of a legal assistant.) In the interview he goes on about doing marketing for the law firm, studying business management, and developing an app for legal services, but he doesn't say anything about studying or practicing law. His social media[6] only says that he's a business manager and "Freedom Forces Advocate", where "advocate" appears to be used in the sense of (political/social) advocacy rather than in the sense of "lawyer". Nakonana (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this thorough verification, Nakonana. Your findings align with the concerns raised earlier — the gazeta.ru description appears to be inaccurate or at least misleading. The evidence you've gathered strongly suggests that Naskovets is a business manager/marketing professional rather than a practicing lawyer:

> 1. Not listed among lawyers on the firm's website

> 2. His own words: "My first job here was that of a legal assistant" (past tense, entry-level position)

> 3. Interview focuses on marketing and business management, not legal practice

> 4. Social media identifies him as "business manager," not lawyer

This is relevant because the article currently relies on his statements as a primary source.

Levashov.peter (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:BLPN|article=Chor Boogie}}

I am the subject of the article and am reporting a potential violation of the biographies of living persons policy.

Issue The article’s lead currently states that the subject “co-operated the Soul Centro iboga retreat in Costa Rica, where a participant died during a 2024 ceremony, prompting an official investigation by local authorities.” This framing gives undue prominence to a single tragic incident and implies unresolved culpability, despite the investigation concluding without charges.

Additionally, the article contains a standalone “Death of Lauren Levis” section that presents the event in a level of detail and prominence disproportionate to the subject’s overall notability as an artist, and omits material outcome context regarding the conclusion of the investigation.

Policy concerns

• WP:BLP – Potentially harmful content about a living person must be presented with extreme care, accuracy, and full context.
• WP:LEAD / WP:UNDUE – Giving a fatality prominent placement in the lead of an artist’s biography places disproportionate weight on a single event unrelated to the subject’s primary notability.
• WP:SYNTH – The current wording and structure risk implying responsibility without explicit sourcing stating such responsibility.
• WP:RECENTISM – A recent event is being emphasized over decades of established artistic career.

Relevant diffs

• Lead sentence including disputed wording:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chor_Boogie&oldid=1326405263

• Current revision containing the “Death of Lauren Levis” section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chor_Boogie&oldid=1326894599

Requested remedy I respectfully request administrator review to determine whether:

1. The lead sentence should be removed or rewritten to comply with WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE, or relocated to a lower section.
2. The “Death of Lauren Levis” section should be reduced in prominence, rewritten to include full outcome context (including closure of the investigation and absence of charges), or summarized in a more neutral and proportionate manner.

This report is submitted solely for policy compliance and not to dispute that a death occurred.

Thank you for your review. MODERNHIERO (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed your post even though your use of AI really makes me want to ignore or collapse that wall of text from view. I've removed a lot of what you're complaining about, with edit summaries explaining why. But please, don't post here again with AI. It doesn't even know this isn't an admin noticeboard. See also WP:VRT and WP:VRTN about how you can confirm your identity and communicate with Wikipedia volunteers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could use more eyes on this article. An editor has persistently and disruptively removed a maintenance template without entirely resolving the issues. The sources and tone are still poor. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Luke Newton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is disagreement concerning diff which added "Newton has been in a steady relationship with dancer Antonia Roumelioti since 2023. In the early stages of their partnership, he reportedly kept the relationship private, influenced by his experiences with previous partners and the heightened public scrutiny surrounding his on-screen chemistry and perceived association with co-star Nicola Coughlan. Newton and Roumelioti began making more public appearances together since early 2025." with reference elle.com. Is that wording suitable/due/verified? Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency and clarity it was actually this diff that originally added that information. The diff above my restoration of that edit. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that diff which shows that the gossip about an actor's dating life was added five days ago by a new editor with a total of five edits. That inexperience explains why such inappropriate wording was used. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not know who originally added the information, as I was only reviewing for neutrality post semi protection status. The title of the article alone, that includes the word rumored, indicates that it is unverified. Reguse32 (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: it should be noted there were multiple pieces of information removed during this edit war including this which is clearly sourced by a WP:RS as per WP:PEOPLEMAG... This is part of what led to so much confusion in my part.

If this notice board disagrees that People is a Reliable Source then we should update the list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#People... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The questionable citations that remain are The Elle magazine citation, which includes "rumored" verbiage in the Personal life section and the People magazine citation which is used in the Partners section. In the case of People, "There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons, but the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source." What is used is a contentious claim that does provide any direct quotations nor link any other stronger source material. Reguse32 (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this elsewhere. The intention of this noticeboard is to get opinions from other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd also like to comment on this topic. I've been keeping an eye on the wikipedia page about Luke Newton for a long time and edit important sections time by time. In the statement we can currently find in the "Personal Life" section, some things are unsubstantiated. No tabloid article mentions "2023". That's pure speculation, bc his past relationship ended in early 2023. And the Elle-Article is based on an Instagram-Post Newton made in early 2025 (The Instagram Official Thing). The actor has never publicly confirmed the relationship. (even in the post he made is no word of "my girlfriend"). His team has never commented on it either. There were pap pictures of him and Antonia, and the press changed "alleged girlfriend" to "girlfriend". He has neither publicly confirmed nor denied it. There are no interviews in which he explicitly refers to her as "his girlfriend". So yeah it seems like they are together/dating according to pap pics and pics from events --> thats a fact I addmit

BUT

I don't think this "In the early stages of their partnership, he reportedly kept the relationship private, influenced by his experiences with previous partners and the heightened public scrutiny surrounding his on-screen chemistry and perceived association with co-star Nicola Coughlan." is truly neutral. A wikipedia article should be written neutrally. Therefore, I would suggest deleting this part, as well as the date 2023. Neither of these claims can be substantiated by the People-article.

And if the information about his current relationship really needs to be in the article, then I would keep it very simple. Just adding a sentence like "He is currently dating dancer Antonia Roumeliotti" Miss.Sophia.F (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid including Ms. Roumelioti as the actor's current partner since as you noted, it has not been confirmed by the actor or his team. Additionally, a relationship or dating claim should not be added to a BLP article when the only available sources are tabloid journalism (which is currently what is available for these claims). Whilst there is Consensus that "People" can be a reliable source, it is also noted that it shouldn't be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source; in this case there fails to be a stronger source available. BLPs should be written conservatively and whilst I agree the two have made appearances together, assuming the nature of their relationship in an encyclopedic article that aims for a neutral point of view makes it no better than a tabloid. Reguse32 (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Reguse32 I completely agree 100% with you. I personally also support removing Ms. Roumelioti from his Wikipedia page. His past relationships are confirmed by him...his current "relationship" not, but only by tabloids.

@Zackmann08 @Johnuniq Would you allow me to edit this part of his Wiki-Page, pls? Miss.Sophia.F (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot allow anyone to edit a page. Not how this works. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08 Okay I see. I was just asking, bc the previouse warring....I'll edit the page as soon as it's possible, since certain facts about Luke Newton, as mentioned above, are not correct/verifiable. I hope my edits will then be approved. Miss.Sophia.F (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ping me about this discussion anymore. I do not wish to participate further. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the biography of Ja’Mal Green. This sentence is misleading and violates Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy.

The statement “Vallas’s campaign paid Green” is factually incomplete and implies personal financial benefit or a quid-pro-quo endorsement, which is not supported by the cited source or campaign finance law.

The referenced payments were campaign expenditures to an entity for services, not evidence that Jamal Green personally received funds or endorsed in exchange for payment. The source does not establish wrongdoing, coordination, or a causal link between payment and endorsement.

Under BLP and defamation policy, implied allegations based on timing and wording must be removed or rewritten with neutral, precise language. I am requesting review and correction by an uninvolved editor.

The sentence implies corruption The source does not prove personal benefit The wording “paid Green” is inaccurate

This language exposes Wikipedia to defamation risk by implying quid-pro-quo without evidence. Per BLP, disputed material must be removed until supported by high-quality, neutral sources that explicitly establish the claim. ~2025-40630-30 (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unsourced information and BLPPRIMARY violation.

The source doesn't appear to say that Green was paid by Vallas, rather Vallas paid a company associated with Green. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant edits in question are here [7]

WP:BLPSPS stipulates to Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves. Key words are 'written or published', not spoken. Should interviews be considered exempt from this? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If person X self-publishes a video or oral interview with person Y, I think it should be acceptable to use person Y's spoken statement about themself, as long as it satisfies the WP:BLPSELFPUB conditions and we have no reason to think that it's been edited in a misleading way. I think that's consistent with the motivation for BLPSPS and BLPSELFPUB. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. ABOUTSELF would only cover for statements of person X. We really do have no idea how X has edited the interview of Y. There needs to be an independent and reputable editorial process for X. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If person Y made a statement about an upcoming project or something about their own life, we could cite it under ABOUTSELF still (and usually do, since podcasts are cited often as well as interviews), as long as we were accurate with the quote. The main factor on us including a statement that someone stated would be if it was DUE for inclusion.

Awshort (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So looks like Wikipedia have been framing an innocent man as the suspect and person of interest along with his full name for several hours

Does BLPCRIME even matter anymore? There's no point in me bringing it up on the talk page if everyone can just freely ignore it anyways Trade (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind there have been three cases of people adding false names as the perpetrator within a relatively short amount of time in between and so far no one have even bothered to revdel it despite me asking--Trade (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah from coverage I have read they had a suspect and then let him go--therefore no one should probably be naming suspects via WP:BLPCRIME Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but what's the point of removing BLPCRIME violations? You remove it once and a different user adds it back couple of hours later when you are away from the computer Trade (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Nothing will change until we start enforcing the policy. WP:BLPRESTORE violations should be strictish-liability things, like WP:3RR. 24-hour pageblock for the first offense, escalate as needed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. +1. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Awshort (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can really fault newbies since the WP:BLPCRIME policy itself can be vague and unclear. Anyway, I've added a sentence to WP:BLPCRIME regarding those named as persons of interest[8]; we'll see if that sentence sticks. Feel free to wordsmith it. Some1 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Half of them were long term users

I was even told there was no point in increasing the protection to ECP since the users who added the content wouldn't be affected anyways Trade (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Brown_University_shooting&oldid=1328228842#Investigation

Can someone tell me why we (read: Wikipedia) are labeling this person as the "Suspect" when the FBI explicitly calls him a "Person of Interest"? Seems like a BLPCRIME violation to me. Nothing against the rest of the Wikipedia community but sometimes it feels like i am the only person who even read what other users write into the article--Trade (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In law enforcement jargon, a 'suspect' is a person whom investigators believe committed the crime being investigated. The suspect's identity may be known or unknown to investigators. There can be multiple suspects.

A 'person of interest' is a known or unknown person whom law enforcement wants to speak to about the crime. They may or may not be a suspect. Indeed, they are frequently witnesses, or even victims. In the diff you linked, all the uses of the word 'suspect' were referring to the unknown person who committed the crime, so there's no violation there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the video explicitly referred to them as a "Person of Interest". Trade (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the BBC source, which is what the statement about the video is currently sourced to, they refer to the person in the video as the 'suspect'. I found two other sources doing the same, though there are a few using 'person of interest'.

I don't think there's any contradiction there, as a suspect is definitionally a person of interest. Nor do I think there's any intent behind the authors' choice of terms. It's just an effort at good prose. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/brown-boston-timelineupdate-121625.mp4/view Trade (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rob Reiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have an unusual case here where an RSP-generally-reliable source (WP:PEOPLEMAG) has made some extremely serious BLP claims that, despite about 12 hours since of heavy media coverage, no one else seems able to confirm, and for the most part other sources aren't even willing to report on indirectly. I would welcome some more eyes on this case as the story develops; I've commented on this at Talk:Rob Reiner § The People article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As a continuiation of this discussion, someone made a Nick Reiner article [9], which I have redirected back to Rob Reiner's article because I think in general it is not a good idea to have an article on a not convicted murder suspect at such an early stage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Bondi Beach shooting has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article in media, [10], more eyes can't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]