Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sam Eljamel

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

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

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

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

The article has turned into a battleground, need some oversight. I believe Denniss is incorrect with this edit and that Trillfendi edit is probably correct.

The source [1] appears to represent an actual confirmation of name. Although the site appears to be a type of blog. I also question the Independent source of [2] maybe somewhat unreliable as a source and removed it from the article.

However Denniss seems to have restored the article to a double barred name and removed a viable source for the correct spelling of her name. It's been a bit back and forth and really need some help. Citation review on these, I am not sure how I trust the sources at the moment. Regards Govvy (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent is a RS, a newspaper with a reputation for fact checking. VT is not. I'm not sure how you can argue that the sources are the other way around. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried getting the page extended protected and also addressing some of the sourcing issues on the talk page to build consensus? Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are we allowed to use this photo in articles? Or does the bottom text on the alien's sign violate BLP? The reason i am asking is because i have already been told that we are not allowed to use File:Trump Is On the Epstein List (54673829027).jpg on any articles for the very same reason --Trade (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. Searching WP for some comparable text, I found this:

• "Journalist Eduardo Bueno had speeches, participation in events, and a podcast cancelled after praising that Kirk's children would "grow up without the presence of a disgusting, scoundrel, racist, homophobic person, linked to pedophile Donald Trump"." [3]
• "In May 2020, Trump Jr. falsely accused Joe Biden of being a pedophile"[4]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i dont get why we are allowed to have quotes calling US presidents but not photos Trade (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter if it's US presidents or not? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not but there is probably a line somewhere Trade (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The line is "public figure" isn't it? JFHJr (㊟) 01:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:I Have Come with the Epstein Files (54865955181).jpg can be cropped if needed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED in terms of swear words, but BLP would prevent us from claiming Trump's level of involvement. Edit: on second thought that last line does push the boundaries of the latter point. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a photo of an demonstrant holding an sign is nowhere close to making a claim Trade (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think in Muboshgu's observation, "us" means "in Wikivoice" but I'm no mind reader. Sorry if I'm off, Muboshgu!

At any rate, I also have no problems with abusive or profane language in context, but would not stand for an unqualified display of the claim as even suggesting a fact in Wikivoice. I think it might belong on an article about anti-Trump protests, where hyperbole and partisanship are already well contextualized. But not on the Trump BLP. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 05:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would that not depend on the caption accompanying the photo? Trade (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. "Fuck Trump" is one thing. The second one is problematic, especially with Wikivoice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was told i wasnt allowed to use the file regardless of captioning Trade (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed Ekaterina Kotrikadze, which has the Infobox person/Wikidata|fetchwikidata=ALL infobox.

WP:DOB is not sourced in ref given in the article, but to WikiData:s credit, there is one there [5] if one can be bothered to go the extra clicks and check. I'm not sure it's WP:BLP-good, though. Some of the other infobox content is in the article text, but not for example the Alma mater and the award.

Per WP:RSPWDTRANS and WP:BLP, it seems to me a generally bad idea to use infoboxes like these in BLP:s at all. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a bad idea to me, too. Content should be reffed in the same place as it is displayed. And not all WD items are reffed by any means. This might be a better tool for the non-living and non-persons. JFHJr (㊟) 01:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Infoboxes shouldn't import details from Wikidata unless there is an associated reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it looks like 3 experienced editors (yourself included) support your position, and nobody has yet opposed your objection. If this is a problem across multiple BLPs, perhaps an RFC may be in order. I haven't checked, but if that's needed, please ping here! Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Make that five+ experienced editors now. Thank you @AndyTheGrump and @GiantSnowman (below). This now is a crystal clear consensus now as far as I'm concerned. JFHJr (㊟) 19:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've transformed this into a real infobox. Improvements are welcome. JFHJr (㊟) 20:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's always some tension when importing wikidata. As a separate project they are not required to abide by enwiki's policies, but that means if their data is imported without any controls it risks not being compliant. What's needed is some way to control what is imported. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We can control it by enforcing existing Wikipedia policy: which is to base article content on WP:RS and not random user-generated junk. Just how did this violation of core Wikipedia policy ever get approved in the first place? Was it actually approved at all? Where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What does that enforcement look like? RfC? Just us rooting the markup out where we can find it? JFHJr (㊟) 04:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My point was that if the infobox is going to import Wikidata, then it needs to be coded to enforce policy and give some mechanisms to stop something from being imported if it's not policy compliant. As the most basic level unreferenced content shouldn't be imported, beyond that not importing content supported by deprecated or blacklisted sources could also be checked. Basically the current situation where it imports, for instance, unreferenced DOBs is against policy and needs to change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the most "approval" this ever had was not being deleted in 2017, similar to {{cite q}} being kept due to no consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This was inevitable, as soon as it became possible to import such alleged 'data' at all. Given its obvious vulnerability to vandalism at source, even beyond the lack of proper citations (which per policy, have to be in the article, not maybe just possibly somewhere else on a WMF server) we will seriously have to consider blocking such imports at all, for the integrity of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully agree that we should use traditional infoboxes for BLPs, not the imported one. GiantSnowman 19:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The WIkidata infobox imports should be blocked by default here, and only enabled by conscious editor choice. Acroterion (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, this is not a good idea as Wikidata can be changed without people realising their edits may also affect the appearance of the actual article with incorrect information/vandalism etc.. On that basis, La Voix (drag queen) had that problem which I noticed not so long ago. Having seen this thread, I have replaced with what the source gave for their works as there doesn't seem to be evidence that this drag queen went on three different Britain's Got Talent competitions. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple newly created or single-purpose accounts have repeatedly inserted a Legal issues/FIR section into the article on Gurjot Singh Kaler. The added content concerns an ongoing police investigation with no charges or findings to date, and appears to rely on police statements and event-based reporting.

As per WP:BLPCRIME, allegations, investigations, or arrests involving living persons must be handled with extreme caution, especially when no charges or conclusions exist. The guideline also instructs editors to avoid material based on police reports or primary-source investigations.

Additionally, several new accounts have edited only this page and only to insert this same material, which may indicate possible WP:BLPCOI or off-wiki coordinated involvement. The pattern has continued despite removals and discussion on the talk page.

Requesting admin review, removal of the disputed content under BLPCRIME, and guidance on appropriate page protection if needed, also the account activity reviewe for possible COI or coordination. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like to request a neutral third opinion regarding a policy question related to the article Gurjot S. Kaler.

The disagreement is not about wording, tone, or sources, but about the interpretation of BLP policies specifically WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:BLP1E and whether they allow or prohibit mentioning a widely reported ongoing legal matter when:

multiple major national reliable sources have covered the incident in detail, the proposed wording is neutral and does not imply guilt, and similar ongoing legal matters appear in many other BLPs with neutral, RS backed summaries.

I am not adding any contested material to the article. I only want to understand how BLP policy should be properly applied here, and whether such content is permissible or must be excluded until the case reaches a legal conclusion.

A neutral third opinion would be helpful in clarifying how these specific BLP Policies should be interpreted in this situation.

Thanks Stop culprits (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As laid out in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, allegations reported in multiple reliable sources can be included. Whoever adds or restores content is responsible for demonstrating its verifiability. Contentious material, especially about living people, must always have an inline citation (WP:MINREF) —Rutebega (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you input and clarification on this.@Rutebega

to summarised my understanding WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME do allow inclusion of legal matter when they are covered in multiple reliable sources.

WP:BLp1E IN this case the subject is already notable for the broader reasons, so policy seems to allow neutral, well-sourced summary of legal issue.

Additional third party input still be to ensure correct policy interpretation. Stop culprits (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rutebega Thanks for your feedback but this has already been discussed at at ANI - Gurjot_S._Kaler_ANI_Discussion, where several uninvolved editors, including an administrator, made it clear that adding the ongoing case would breach WP:BLPCRIME. The editor trying to put it back in was advised to stop, indicating that community review has already taken place and supports the removal. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IVickyChoudhary GURJOT SINGH ANI DISCUSSION also been delete by someone because @wbcrime policy misleads on that ANI. So requesting you please read the policy carefully.

it doesn’t mentioned anywhere on that policy that it can’t involve the legal pending matter. Policy clearly says it needs to be carefully worded with reliable published sources.

Due to dispute between us we come to this page as per the @wp:blpcoi guidelines and we already got one vote as legal matter can be added as per reliable source.

Below , Policy wording copy and pasted for you

Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocentuntil convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, is suspected of, is a person of interest, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.

so simple language: when I added the legal matter I added all reliable public sources and I clearly mentioned case is still under investigation and pending for final outcome.

so all rules been so i kindly requesting @IVickyChoudhary to add the legal matter on this page, please. Stop culprits (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been deleted from WP:ANI. The thread was closed, with specific instructions to "Consider pursuing dispute resolution options if discussion at the article talk page is unfruitful". [6] And per normal procedure, the bot archived the thread after it had been closed for some time. Repeating the same posts again and again in multiple places is not 'pursuing dispute resolution', and I suggest that both of you do so properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @AndyTheGrump, that guys seems nothing to know about wiki policies, he created this account for single purpose, so one of admin and editors already warned him about his pattern of edits and may be COI, so ignore him. :) iVickyChoudhary (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IVickyChoudhary yes I am new to hear and still learning. Since childhood I thought wikipiad is 100 % is correct but now I know it’s all dependent on editor, what they want to favour to particular page. Same things you doing it for kaler page. You experienced still failed to obey the Wikipedia policy and not sure why but that’s for sure you are favouring this page by deleting the legal matter. @WP:BPLCRIME doesn’t says anywhere that we can add legal pending matter. But also shame for other experiences editor also not putting there effort on following this policy. Instead of my new profile and my intentaion why not you tell me where in policy it says we can’t legal pending matter? Policy says we need to use reliable sources and we can’t use word like guilt. Stop culprits (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IVickyChoudhary and Stop culprits, you both would be well advised to take note of what you have been told regarding 'pursuing dispute resolution'. Which doesn't include repeating the same arguments again and again here. If you carry on like this, you may very well exhaust the community's patience and one or both of you may end up being blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop culprits No one should think Wikipedia is 100% correct, see the general disclaimer. It's up to readers to examine the sources provided when determining what they think about what they read. See WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disclosure: I have a COI and am not editing the article directly. A COI edit request for Sukhinder Singh Cassidy’s article has been open for some time. I’m seeking uninvolved input to remove the maintenance banner that has been placed on the Wikipedia page since July 2024. I have included new references for another editor to review and remove the banner but with the high backlog of COI editors, no one has been able to take a look. The request includes exact proposed text and sources. Link: Singh Cassidy - Update request to remove Wikipedia banner/maintenance tag

TSXero (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. This forum is not an end-run around the WP:COI edit request process. However I have removed the maintenance template after adding several ref dates. I also noticed several refs sourcing press releases, and one that failed verification. I removed them as well. But there may be more awful refs to excise while you wait for the COI folks to come around. We can talk about them here. Plenty of WP:BLPSPS apparently. JFHJr (㊟) 05:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JFHJr, thanks for your guidance. I am new to the Wikipedia editing process and am eager to learn so I appreciate the resources. I've placed a few updated references for Sukhinder Singh Cassidy in the talk page here: Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy#Update request for accurate references and will aim to do an audit of references on the page to ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. In cases where there are no third-party publications for references, is it OK to have a self-published source as a reference to back up the claim/sentence or to remove the claim/sentence? Please advise. Thanks TSXero (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the claims aren't supported by any third parties, they are likely not encyclopedically significant and should be removed. Exceptions for BLPSPS and PRIMARY include basic and uncontroversial biographical info such as date and place of birth, parentage, and even name (usually). There are other uses. Please read WP:BLPSPS and WP:PRIMARY to see how they can be used. JFHJr (㊟) 00:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

ALIM , USTAZ AND BUSINESSMAN Ijazhaqnodhwi (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ijazhaqnodhwi Can you clarify what you are trying to express here? HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 21:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an edit request meant for Talk:Muhammad Ijaz-ul-Haq. JFHJr (㊟) 23:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there're two ongoing disputes over Hany Abu-Assad's infobox. Clear consensus is needed on whether to include his citizenship (Israel and the Netherlands) and whether to write his place of birth as simply |birth_place=Nazareth. Could you guys please share your thoughts at Talk:Hany Abu-Assad#violation of wp:blp? Thanks in advance, Thedarkknightli (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I may bump this request, it is quite disconcerting at present that the infobox does not accurately reflect the contents of the article, the way reliable sources discuss Hany and his notability, nor does it respect how he self-identifies. Feel that bold edits are required to bring it into line with WP:BLP. Tiamut (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I have created. Everything is verified with reliable sources, but I thought I'd get a second pair of eyes to look over it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is he notable? WP:BLP1E might apply here, though admittedly there is a significant amount of coverage User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of WP:GNG it would be hard to argue that he hadn't received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In terms of WP:BLP1E I would argue that this is hardly a single event, but also that it applies only to low-profile figures. Eljamel is not a low-profile figure. WP:LPI is an essay rather than a guideline, but its definitions of high profile are valid. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing looks great and considering the malpractice accusations I think it meets WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is reference to the wiki page for Ann_Simonton In the biography section, there is a claim that Ann Simonton lied during a radio interview, regarding Department of Justice California crime data, specifically year 2021. This paragraph does not clearly or properly link researchable/verifiable data that would backup the claim that she lied. Moreover, it the paragraph seems to equate rape and sexual violence with violent crime and property theft, neither of which is specifically related to the claim by Ann Simonton of increase in rape and sexual assault. Finally, a simple search of the Internet Archive for the data by the DOJ California Crime Report 2021 does indeed show that crime is up, and in the percentage claimed by Ann Simonton, contrary to the closing statement of the paragraph in question that states "It is widely accepted in the United States broadly, and in California, that rates of violent crime and property theft are below historical peaks"

^[1]

I feel this paragraph is incorrect, violates the Biographies of Living Persons rules, and is biased in its composition and publication based on verifiable facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-37108-44 (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this looks problematic, and I've removed it. Simonton did not claim (falsely or otherwise) that rape and sexual assault were "drastically increasing"; she said rape rates were increasing (cited to a report which does indeed support that the rape rate increased in California in 2021) and that the number of sexual assault victims coming into the emergency rooms has increased 15-fold (again cited to a source which directly supports the claim). The claim that this was false appears to be the original analysis of whichever editor added it to the article. Unless we have a secondary source critically discussing Simonton's editorial I don't see that it needs to be in the article at all; we certainly shouldn't include that it is false based on dubious original analysis. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the user who added this claim: @Abs145:, diff would like to explain themselves? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I would actually vote to remove this article in general as the person is not significant. Signs of original research, unsourced statements and first person (interview) sourcing were rampant so I updated.

WRT this argument - This statement, "cited to a report which does indeed support that the rape rate increased in California in 2021" doesn't qualify a base year - so I don't understand how you can claim I was biasing. What year are you using a base year? A YoY increase tells us very little about long term trends of violence, and as I stated it is well known that over time (since 1970s, let's say, which is about when this person started activism in the area) has been drastically decreasing. The source that says 15-fold increase again has no base year - what are you trying to say? It's not that it was original analysis, it was supported by some lower level editors / commentors at the same magazine. This could be removed, but I think its one of the only contributions lately by Simonton in the area with which she's supposedly an expert.

Can I nominate to remove? Abs145 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that Simonton is not notable, you can start a deletion discussion. If you think existing content is original research, you can remove it. What you should not do on any article, especially a BLP, is add more original research.

This statement, "cited to a report which does indeed support that the rape rate increased in California in 2021" doesn't qualify a base year: the report that Simonton's article cites does in fact give a base year relative to which the rape rate in California increased in 2021 (from 33.8 in 2020 to 36.7 in 2021 [emphasis mine]). Now maybe Simonton's citation of a single year's increase amid a general trend of decreases since the 1970s is misleading, but that's not a conclusion we can come to ourselves; you need to cite a reliable source making that argument. And that still doesn't explain why you misrepresented Simonton as having said that the rape rate was "drastically increasing".

The source that says 15-fold increase again has no base year: again this is not true. The source cited by Simonton says 15-fold increase between 2006 and 2019 [my emphasis]. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To your first para - I will nominate. I first made a good faith attempt at all the editing, and ofc I avoid original research.

So there is a year in which you can qualify the stat against - you're looking at the previous year - and I would argue, again, that this is a super misleading claim. YoY trends in violent crime are negligent to report unless a clear factor or policy is identified. I did cite the overall trend in sexual violence in the US in the article, please review.

Finally Simonton never said 15-fold increase btwn the two years, please re-read the article yourself and see she mentions NO YEAR. Therefore - think the whole statement is misleading, again. Please see in the article where engagement with the local media / comments on this local media page indicate people see it as misleading. Again, though, this debate is so trivial and she is so unimportant, happy to have it removed. nom for deletion going up. Abs145 (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arabella Advisors#Editing of Wikipedia page was removed on October 27 and restored less than 120 seconds later by Valorrr. [[7]] It was removed again on November 15 by a different user, and restored within five minutes by BBQboffin. [[8]]

The section itself is only one sentence, and seems inoffensive at first glance, but contains disparaging terms. "Scrutiny" is a newspaper word that implies evildoing. In newspaper-land, no one ever comes under "scrutiny" for doing something good. It also describes "hiring a paid editor" to emphasize the author's disapproval. You can't possibly hire an editor who is not a paid editor.

The more serious problem is in the two references. Both go to non-mainstream publications. The first goes to a pay-walled article in the Daily Beast with the headline, "Lefty Advocacy Outfit Enlists PR Strategist to Clean Up Its Wikipedia Page." The second reference goes to an article in the right-wing Washington Free Beacon, which has an extensive excerpt from The Daily Beast article. The excerpt has these problems:

It identifies a Wikipedia editor, JJ for Arabella, by her real name, a policy violation. A weasel word, "public relations specialist" implies that JJ for Arabella's statements on the talk page are propaganda or lies. There is no source in the article indicating what her profession is, or what she is a "specialist" in.

An additional problem is that it is concerned exclusively with things appearing on a Wikipedia talk page. Wikipedia editors write to communicate with Wikipedia, not with the public. If it is leaked to the public, it should not be republished by being referenced in Wikipedia.

It is based almost entirely on talk page postings by User Marquardtika. In other words, Wikipedia is using itself as a source, or what the policy page describes as "circular reporting."

It is loaded with other weasel words, such as "powerful network", "scrub its page", "financial activity" and "attempts to shield financial information from the public." All of these phrases imply crimes such as money laundering, fraud and obstruction of justice in which JJ for Arabella is presumably implicated. There is nothing in the article to explain what is really happening, or to concede that all of it is legal.

The section should be deleted again and the editors who restore it should be suspended.

The whole article was posted on a noticeboard in October and drew a comment that the article "is a bad NPOV violation." There was no further comment and no action was taken. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1204#Arabella Advisors

Another dispute on this page was closed: [[9]] [[10]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian in LA (talk • contribs) 03:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaints focus on the content of our sources. It is neither our job nor our intent to limit what the media does, nor do we limit our sources to media that follow Wikipedia guidelines.

A "public relations specialist" is not weasel words. I've known people in public relations, it's an extant field.

The "implications" you point to seem to be, at best, your inferences.

Wikipedia talk pages cannot be "leaked to the public"; by default, they are open for public view at all times, intentionally. There is no intent at secrecy involved for information to be leaked. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are open only to editors. People reading the article in The Daily Beast can't read the talk page for themselves unless they are willing to establish Wikipedia accounts.

Please ask your friends among the public relations specialists what their profession actually is, and whether JJ for Arabella does it.

Please also explain what a weasel word is. The Wikipedia policy says that it is a phrase subject to multiple interpretations. If the original authors of the page don't like my interpretation, they should edit it to say what they actually meant. Julian in LA (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see this:

Contentious labels WP:CONTENTIOUS

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject Julian in LA (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk pages are open only to editors. -- That is false. Article talk pages are open for reading by anybody -- if you don't believe me, sign out of Wikipedia (or open an incognito window on your brower), and go to any Wikipedia page. Click the "Talk" tab. You'll be able to see the contents of the Talk page. Not only that, but on all but a small portion of the pages, you'll be able to edit the Talk page without being logged in.
• Please also explain what a weasel word is. The Wikipedia policy says that it is a phrase subject to multiple interpretations. No, we don't actually have a policy about weasel words. We have a guideline about weasel words, part of our Manual of Style. You can read the entry at MOS:WEASEL; it does not have the definition you suggest for it. And the manual of style is designed to be a style manual for Wikipedia; it is not meant to be a method of judgment for sources, many of which have their own style manuals that do not fully accord with ours.
• Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided... -- the full text of the section in question is "In June 2020, Arabella came under scrutiny for hiring a paid editor to request edits to their Wikipedia page." Among those eighteen words and one number, which are you asserting is a "value-laden label"?

Discussion boards like this one tend to be watched primarily by fairly experienced editors. They are a great place to ask questions. They are not, however, a great place to present your assumptions or inventions as being "Wikipedia policy" as the folks here will tend to know the difference. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried out your suggestion about the talk page, and yes, I was able to access it after being logged out.

Regarding weasel words, I had been looking at Template:Weasel, which states, "'Weasel words' are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful had been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." Is that a guideline, a suggestion, or something else? could the template be inserted at the top of this page? Julian in LA (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not in itself a guideline, but rather a notation one can use to indicate that one feels the guideline (MOS:WEASEL) has not been followed. It can indeed be put at the top of the page, but it is generally preferable to use Template:Weasel inline after the specific word or phrase that is of concern, so that people know what the concern is and can address it. (Also realize that other editors can remove the template, if they look at the markup and find that the words aren't ones that violate the guideline.)

Most of the terms you describe as "weasel words" above are complaints not about our article, but source content, so of course the template could not be applied. (We do have "Liberal Dark Money Behemoth Seeks to Scrub Wikipedia Page of Free Beacon Reporting" in the references list, but as a title of a reference, it is not something we would seek to alter.) The first thing you discuss is "scrutiny", which looking at dictionary definitions does not inherently carry the negative connotations that you seem to put on it. However, if you feel it does, the most effective way to handle it is not to delete the section outright, nor even to put on a tag, but to try to find a way to convey that it got press attention without using that specific word (replacing it with, perhaps, "press attention".)

As for "hiring a paid editor", while I can understand why you feel it's redundant, I think it's of use. Indicating that they paid someone who does it professionally rather than just threw money at someone who is normally an editor reflects that paid editing is part of the normal Wikipedia ecosystem, whereas merely saying they "paid an editor" might leave people wondering if it was more like a bribe. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to imagine how I could rewrite this to accurately reflect its source. "Arabella was attacked for something shown on the talk page that you can access by clicking above. An editor known only as JJ for Arabella was condemned by someone known only as Marquardt. JJ for Arabella said something uncomplimentary about The Washington Free Beacon, which led them to print an outraged story that featured lengthy quotes from both of these unnamed editors, and claimed to out JJ for Arabella by printing her real name."

Will this advance human knowledge? When it is reverted ten seconds later, can I restore it?

Nobody thinks that hiring an editor is less professional than hiring a paid editor. The redundant phrase was used for a reason, and its meaning is clear.

This woman has been defamed. You and the defense lawyer will claim that these words are innocent. The plaintiff's lawyer and the jury will say that they are clearly an accusation of wrongdoing. Neither side will look in any dictionaries. Julian in LA (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making a legal threat here? If so, you should review Wikipedia:No legal threats and consider withdrawing it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. This is the BLP noticeboard. The purpose of the BLP policy, as far as I can tell, is to prevent defamation suits against Wikipedia. This post is a suit waiting to happen. Julian in LA (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am missing a suit over what... what we say about this person whom we do not name is that they were a paid editor who was hired to edit. Do you have any source which indicates that was not accurate? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't name her, but it contains two references to sources that do. "What we say about this person" is that she is attempting to manipulate our page for evil purposes. You think it doesn't say that, but I think it couldn't be clearer.

Today's Wall Street Journal uses the word "scrutiny" in a headline. It's talking about the Secretary of Defense/War. Nobody has to ask whether they approve of his recent actions or whether the scrutiny is coming from his supporters. Julian in LA (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, she might sue us over things you're making up? That seems unlikely. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facing repeated vandalism of troll vandalism with either unreliable (instagram) or unreachable sources. Anonymous users have made the change ~5 times now. The content in question is some conspiracy theory about some clandestine chemical program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshanrh (talk • contribs) 10:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eshanrh Vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV. Page protection may be requested at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danny de Hek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I’m concerned about repeated addition of contentious, strongly negative material to Danny de Hek by temporary accounts, particularly User:~2025-37383-17 and User:~2025-37469-59. The added text includes detailed negative claims about the subject’s conduct and legal matters, much of which is unsourced or sourced only to poor-quality / self-published material, and appears defamatory.

I have removed this material citing WP:BLP, but it has been repeatedly reinserted:

• diff – addition by ~2025-37383-17
• diff – addition by ~2025-37469-59

I would appreciate input on whether this material should remain out of the article unless and until it is supported by high-quality independent sources, and whether any further action is appropriate if this pattern continues.

M20294135122 (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edits by anons do seem to comport well with WP:POV and WP:BLPCRIME; this article must not implicate non-public figures without an actual conviction as reported by a secondary WP:RS. Is there really a problem here? Or a WP:BOOMERANG? JFHJr (㊟) 18:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very much a WP:BOOMERANG ~2025-36898-37 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to need some help here enforcing neutrality. Danny continues to manipulate the article by reversing legitimate revisions intended to provide the reader with unbiased, neutral coverage. Its turned into an edit war... ~2025-37469-59 (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of fair journalism and neutrality, I propose that we restore previously posted content, at admin's discretion. This article is being unfairly manipulated, with large sections of truthful information (from high quality sources) being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-36898-37 (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to need some help here enforcing neutrality. Danny continues to manipulate the article by reversing legitimate revisions intended to provide the reader with unbiased, neutral coverage. Its turned into an edit war... ~2025-37469-59 (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment this (totally unfounded sentence): "His low-carbohydrate Wheat Belly diet has been cited by dietitians as an example of a fad diet and because of its restrictive nature is likely to be low in B-vitamins, calcium and vitamin D.[7" He is against processed sugars and processed or unprocessed (most) grains only. There is no way how this could lead to a deficiency of vitamin D. All foods containing vitamin D are endorsed so this is purely made-up, no processed sugars, even no natural sugars, no wheat contains vitamin D in any noticeable amount. He is pro-milk products/cheeses so again, this is totally unfounded with calcium deficiency, too (no significant calcium in foods he recommends to avoid). And he is pro many vitamin B containing foods (like meat, cheese, yoghurt, unprocessed healthy foods, veggies etc.), his selection of foods have in fact much higher contents of vitamins of the B group, compared to the wheat and sugars he recommends to avoid. All three claims are totally unfounded to flawed and his diet is, on the contrary, much stronger in all three. I have read and followed dr Davis, but I have not read the source book under "7" that allegedly claims these three deficiencies of his diet but it cannot be there if written by experts. I tried to change this sentence but someone turned it back to the totally unfounded statements. Please remove the incorrect statements. (I am not acting on behalf of dr. Davis, I just want wiki to be correct) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-37565-20 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments belong on Talk:William Davis (cardiologist), along with references to reliable sources that directly support the changes you'd like to see. JFHJr (㊟) 00:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have been watching the page SiegedSec for some time. Last month the section regarding one of the people involved in the group, Leah Kemp (kittyhawk), was removed based on personal communication with the subject. It was reinstated because that is not a valid reason to remove content. However, I have concerns that despite that being an invalid reason, the sourcing used to justify keeping this section is very thin - an article from the Daily Dot and the subject's personal website. There has been some back and forth discussion in the ediit summaries and less on the talk page but I believe it needs more input. -- Reconrabbit 16:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Talk:SiegedSec Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-37826-67 disputes the validity of the subject of the article stating "I was born nineteen hundred and fifty six on December 16th, and am 68 years old today" [21] for unclear reasons, and consistently attempts to remove the birth date from the article, for several successively different reasons. The current claimed reason is that subject has previously been inconsistent about whether he is or is not a fascist and so we are banned from using his WP:ABOUTSELF claims, but this is not policy, as his age is not an unduly self serving claim, there is no source that indicates he has lied about his age, and the age he claims is within the range of the ages given to him by RS. The user claims all these sources and every source that has ever said Rice is a certain age is unreliable. Any other opinions? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP/I TarnishedPath^talk 09:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one else besides me and this user has contributed, so I do not think I can at this moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the DOB and left them a warning for edit warring. TarnishedPath^talk 09:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, TarnishedPath. For reasons that are unclear to me, PARAKANYAA is simply lying about my consistently presented, singular concern re the lack of reliable sourcing of subject's birthdate. PARAKANYAA (who bizarrely attempted to divert the conversation into ideology) was the initial source of my knowledge that Rice is an unreliable source. Ultimately PARAKANYAA appears to rely on a combination of ABOUTSELF (ie., from a subject who lies "very often," according to PARAKANYAA) and a flurry of insignificant parroting sources to justify publishing a birthdate that is very likely inaccurate. I hope I've stated this clearly.~2025-37826-67 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath @~2025-37826-67 That someone tells self serving statements (already prohibited by ABOUTSELF) about their ideology and public stunts does not mean they are unreliable for basic, non-self serving facts (allowed by ABOUTSELF). It is very likely accurate considering it lines up with every RS's given age for him, and no source has ever contradicted it. We already cannot cite unduly self serving statements! This is not that!

And now you have reverted for a fourth time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. for just one example from one of the book sources we cite:

'Rice grew up in Southern California, first attracting public attention in March 1976 when first lady Betty Ford visited a senior center in San Diego. Rice, then 19, welcomed her by holding up a skinned pig’s head. Detained by Secret Service agents, he said during his interrogation that it was a Dada-esque art prank. He was released without charges.3' (also backed up by news reports) [22] [23]

March 1976 - 19 years, so we know from this was born some time between March 1956 and March 1957. That matches the age range, unless you think the US Secret Service is also lying for him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:~2025-37826-67_reported_by_User:TarnishedPath_(Result:_) TarnishedPath^talk 09:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-37826-67 you argument is coming accross as WP:POINTY. ABOUTSELF is part of policy. TarnishedPath^talk 09:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-37826-67 is now required to create an account. If they continue editing with temporary accounts, please let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and reverted all of their pointy vandalism. Hopefully they find a new hobby. TarnishedPath^talk 23:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modestly I have a significant presence in the global academic world of statistical, risk and decision analysis. Many books, refereed publications and, indeed, several prizes and awards. So when I received an invitation to help have a wikipedia living biography, it did not seem completely out of place. But it clearly could be a scam. How do I check? The email came from a gmail user nelson.wikimoderator and said:

"Dear Simon,

I hope you're doing well.

I’m reaching out because I noticed and recognize the work you've done in your field. Your contributions are truly valuable and deserve more attention.

A well-made Wikipedia page could help showcase your achievements to a wider audience. I'd be happy to help create a professional page to make sure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines.

Do let me know if you'd like to talk more about this. I'm happy to explain the process and answer any questions you might have.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Nelson Hathaway

Wikipedia Admin"

Can you advise?

Thank you

Professor Simon French

Emeritus Professor Alliance Manchester Business School ~2025-37919-33 (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should never need somebody to ask to create an article about you. If you have enough academic citations to meet the general guidelines for an article, it's likely a volunteer will independently write one anyway. No Wikipedia administrator would try and offer to write for payment (if they tried, they would probably have their privileges removed) so whoever this "wiki moderator" (there is no such term) is, they are a plain and simple scammer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a scam, I recommend not replying and certainly not sending them any money. FDW777 (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely a scam. jellyfish ✉ 18:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-37919-33 Please see Wikipedia:Scam warning. qcne (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the concerns voiced by others, I would discourage you from wanting to have a Wikipedia page about you so much that you would pay for it. While it may seem like an honor and a worthwhile record, realize that this will likely be the first search result when someone wants to find out more about you -- a page over which you have no real control, and that people with disagree with you actually have more right than you do to edit it. It is not an unmitigated benefit. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words. JFHJr (㊟) 22:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all this very sensible advice.

Simon ~2025-38102-04 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of the article Michael R. Fenzel, and I am requesting administrative attention under Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy.

The article currently includes two paragraphs containing serious, unverified allegations that violate multiple BLP standards, including WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS.

Problematic passages:

“In 2024, Tablet Magazine accused Fenzel of pro-Palestinian bias, which allegedly resulted in President Joe Biden issuing an Executive Order regarding the West Bank.”

“In 2025, his former Chief of Staff Colonel Steve Gabavics accused Fenzel of suppressing investigative findings regarding the slain Palestinian reporter Shireen Abu Akleh… He asserts that Fenzel buried the investigation details.”

Reasons these violate core BLP policy:

These paragraphs rely on opinion journalism and uncorroborated personal assertions, not independent secondary reporting, in violation of WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIMARY. The material presents unverified allegations as fact, including claims of wrongdoing, which is explicitly prohibited under WP:BLPCRIME. The sources do not meet the reliability threshold required for contentious claims about a living person. The Abu Akleh-related accusations contradict the official U.S. government findings and are not supported by any reputable investigative reporting. The claims receive undue weight far disproportionate to their coverage in reliable sources, violating WP:UNDUE. The language used is inflammatory (“buried the investigation,” “beyond a reasonable doubt,” etc.) and creates a misleading impression of substantiated misconduct without the required evidentiary basis.

Requested action:

I respectfully request that uninvolved editors or administrators remove these two paragraphs in full to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia’s BLP requirements.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

— Michael Fenzel ~2025-38102-07 (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's true -- the sourcing for this sentence is not even close to adequate. I've removed it and will keep watch on the page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A section relying on a self-published source that also is contentous keeps beeing added to the page in question under the heading of "== Uppsala University Math Professors Incident ==" on the Anders_Hallberg page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnhj (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Keeps being added'? It had been there since mid October, since nobody had reverted it. What was stopping you from doing so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of the article Tony Anthony (evangelist). I have declared my conflict of interest and have only used the article’s Talk page via edit COI

requests.

On 17 November 2025 I submitted a Biographies of Living Persons (BLP)–focused edit request concerning the opening sentence, which currently reads:

> “Tony Anthony (born Andonis Andreou Athanasiou; 30 July 1971) is a British Christian evangelist and serial fantasist.”

This wording presents “serial fantasist” in Wikipedia’s own voice as an asserted biographical fact. That phrase originates from a single 2013 article in *The Observer* and is a highly contentious characterisation. The same phrase already appears later in the article, properly attributed to *The Observer* within the section describing the 2013 Evangelical Alliance investigation.

Per WP:BLP and MOS:LABEL, contentious descriptions about a living person should be used with great care, clearly attributed, and not stated in the encyclopedia’s own voice. Placing this label in the first sentence of the lead also appears to give it undue weight under WP:LEAD and WP:DUE, especially when the article already includes substantial coverage of that controversy further down.

My recent edit request proposes the following alternative lead:

> “Tony Anthony (born 30 July 1971) is a British Christian evangelist and author. He became prominent following the publication of his autobiography Taming the Tiger (2004). In 2013 an Evangelical Alliance panel questioned parts of his account; Anthony and some supporters later disputed the panel’s findings.”

This keeps the 2013 controversy in the lead, but removes the un-attributed pejorative label from Wikipedia’s voice and summarises the dispute in a neutral way. The Observer quotation would remain in the investigation section where it is already properly attributed.

Links to the pending requests on the article Talk page:

• Talk:Tony Anthony (evangelist)#BLP concern - Request removal of un-attributed "serial fantasist" label from lead
• Talk:Tony Anthony (evangelist)#Request for balanced coverage of post-2013 humanitarian work (WP:DUE)

Given the backlog on edit requests, I am asking here for independent input on:

1. Whether the current use of “serial fantasist” in the first sentence complies with WP:BLP, MOS:LABEL and WP:LEAD. 2. Whether the proposed alternative lead is an acceptable BLP-compliant summary that still reflects the existence of the 2013 Evangelical Alliance panel findings and subsequent dispute.

I am not threatening legal action; I am simply very concerned about the reputational impact of Wikipedia presenting, in its own voice, such a label about a living person. I would appreciate guidance and, if appropriate, administrator assistance in implementing a compliant lead.

Thank you for your time.

TonyAnthonyWiki TonyAnthonyWiki (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEDE appears to accurately summarize and reflect the contents of the article. Lying is a central aspect to your notability. If there's a labeling problem with a two-word "-ist" term, do you think the two words in the lede should just be "liar"? JFHJr (㊟) 02:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens "serial fantasist" makes it sound like he just has maladaptive daydreaming or something. Generally fantasist means an imaginative person or someone prone to fantastical thinking, which is not at all what this article is going for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Serial fantasist" is a clinical term for a compulsive liar. JFHJr (㊟) 03:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) This seems to be a UK specific usage, as every instance of this I can find is from a British outlet. Searching google books most of the usages of the term are not this definition, and every single one that does is British. Most of the other ones that say this are in reference to sexual fantasies, e.g. [24], not lies, which was honestly what I assumed when I read the lead. Very jarring.

2) Calling someone a compulsive liar in the first sentence of their biography is a MOS:LABEL violation. And if it is a clinical term would we not need an extra reliable source to say? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I've removed it from the lede. JFHJr (㊟) 03:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyAnthonyWiki, I left a response regarding your other request at the article talkpage. That is the best forum for your request. JFHJr (㊟) 04:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This person has been in news recently because of alleged involvement in sexual abuse. In the 'Controversies' section of the article, many female victims have been named and many allegations have been given. I think this section need to be cleaned up to remove the names of the victims of sexual abuse and the 'name callings' given there. I also support semi protecting this article to keep vandalism at bay. --Netha (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is already semi-protected. The content was added by Rahul pluck pluck, a recently created SPA. The username appears to violate Wikipedia’s username policy as it falls under WP:ATTACKNAME. Given the nature of the edits, the account may warrant a block, and depending on the specifics, suppression of the edit history may also be appropriate. TheWikiholic (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request administrator attention regarding a violation of WP:BLP in the article "Andrey Kurpatov".

One editor repeatedly insists on including the term “lover” in reference to the subject's alleged relationship with another person. This claim is not supported by any reliable independent sources, and concerns private life and sexual orientation, which BLP policy prohibits publishing without very strong high-quality sourcing.

WP:BLP requires the immediate removal of unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, especially regarding personal life. The editor argues that such material should remain “until Radio Svoboda publishes a retraction”, which has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Information is included only when reliable sources explicitly confirm it — not when no “denial” exists.

The disputed claim violates WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:UNDUE and should be removed immediately.

A neutral version of the paragraph (based strictly on verifiable documented facts) has already been proposed, but the other editor continues to revert without proper policy-based justification.

I ask for administrator review and assistance in enforcing WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartman40 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The English-language Wikipedia does not have a page Andrey Kurpatov (although the name is mentioned on the Krasny Kvadrat page), and this post here appears to be your account's first edit on the English Wikipedia (although that may be in error if the edits were to a page that has been deleted.) Are you possibly asking in regard to another language's Wikipedia such as the one you've edited previously? If so, that site should have its own discussion spaces or manner of addressing concerns, as well as their own policies. We cannot help here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Trial of Michael Jackson#Including this in the category False allegations of sex crimes, there's a discussion about whether or not it's appropriate to include it in Category:False allegations of sex crimes. While the article itself isn't a BLP, the alleged victim is a living person, so this is still a BLP related discussion. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is the beginning of an edit war over this potentially damaging change based on original research.

~2025-35544-03 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your first step should have been to start a discussion on the article's Talk page. I have now done so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations need to be removed on sight. Thanks for your help. ~2025-35544-03 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they don't need to be taken to the BLP noticeboard on sight. It's generally preferable to start a discussion on the talk page of the article and then go to a higher-level board only if some accord cannot be reached. As it says at the top of this page, "Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources are not accurate :( such as footnote 27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnisaOk (talk • contribs) 05:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 27 doesn't point to the correct source, which should be Bill Berkowitz, "Reframing the Enemy".  Tewdar  19:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes/comments welcome at Talk:Ros_Barber#Hello._I_am_the_subject_of_this_article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Daddy Lumba there have been edits on contentious topics with many uncited additions regarding recent events, with some of them regarding living people, though the subject is deceased. Page protection may be warranted.

The biggest WP:BLP violation I see is that degrading terms for Priscilla Odo Broni (still living, I don't know if this is the correct name) have been added, added, again, yet again, and again, added, and re-added 1, 2 more times after removal.

Similarly, this might not be a WP:BLP violation, but uncited claims that the death of Daddy Lumba is disputed by unspecified people have been added, and re-added, again, and yet again.

First IP user worked up three warnings for adding unsourced content, before apparently switching to a different temp account to keep re-adding the unsourced content. Ilvekset (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at this diff and remove the text if it's not reliably sourced; I suspect it is not, but Imgur is geolocked for me. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. I could see the imgur page, but it lacks any context to support the claim. Schazjmd (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Christopher Hadnagy, the subject of the article. I have a declared Conflict of Interest and do not edit my own biography. I previously opened an RfC regarding BLP, lead weight, and UNDUE concerns, but it received no comments before being archived.

I am requesting uninvolved editor attention because the issues involve potential WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE problems. These include the placement of a lawsuit in the lead and the relative weight of one controversy compared to a long career.

I am not asking anyone to support a particular outcome. I am only requesting that uninvolved editors review the concerns so that policy based consensus can be reached.

Thank you for your time.

Christopher Hadnagy (COI declared) ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to the article: Christopher Hadnagy

Lovelano (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all missed the "block party" this week and last. I filed an ANI complaint[25], 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[26] 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[27]. Thanks and sorry about the mess. BBQboffin^{grill me} 20:55, 5 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]

Apologies if this is not the right place, I am fairly new to contributing to wikipedia!

The Rajan Sawhney article has been edited multiple times adding/removing current news about the subject and I was advised to stop editing and create a Talk page. However, the other editors are not engaging with the Talk page and I'm uncertain what the next steps in dispute resolution are.

I do believe the information added was relevant, allowable, newsworthy, and was properly cited (more information given on the Talk page).

I'd appreciate any guidance on the next steps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamamonkey206 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 6 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]