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.

John Hewitt (entrepreneur): Possible Violation of Biographies of Living Persons Policy

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

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

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

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we do not cite court records to support assertions regarding living persons.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonnie Blue (actress)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brooke Norton-Cuffy page

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

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

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

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

Clarification Regarding Brooke's Heritage and External Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poonam singer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam

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

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

David Fithian

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jennifer Abbott

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

User:Dr.Mike E Hayworth

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.

---

New editor creating an autobiographical article. Can someone more experienced in working with editors attempting to write an autobiography in Wikipedia please take a look at the contributions of Dr.Mike E Hayworth (talk · contribs), including their User page? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I've offered it a speedy. JFHJr (㊟) 03:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: autobiographer has spammed by putting this in userspace (above) as well as sandbox and randomly at wpspace at the brand-new WP:Requested articles/People. This is someone 1) on a personal mission who 2) can't get it right. He is WP:NOTHERE. JFHJr (㊟) 03:34, 21 June 2025 (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.

Brooke Norton-Cuffy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Removal of Incorrect Heritage Information from Brooke Norton-Cuffy’s Wikipedia Entry

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.

---

Dear Wikipedia Team, I am writing to formally request the removal of an inaccurate and misleading statement from the Wikipedia article on Brooke Norton-Cuffy, which currently claims that he is "of Dominican descent" — a statement now moved to the "Personal life" section. This claim is based on a source that is factually incorrect. As I’ve previously explained in Talk page discussions, I am Brooke’s mother, and I am fully prepared to provide verification of that relationship if required under Wikipedia’s policies. I believe my position qualifies me as a primary source on personal biographical information, especially when no accurate or published secondary source exists. Here are the key points I would like to emphasise in support of this request: Inaccurate Source: The website cited (e.g., Sport.de) incorrectly states that Brooke has Dominican nationality. This is factually wrong — Brooke has never held Dominican nationality, and I have already contacted the site to request that they remove the Dominican flag associated with his profile. No Dual Nationality: Brooke is third-generation British. Both his father and I were born in the UK, and while his paternal grandparents may have Dominican heritage, Brooke does not identify with that background, nor has he ever represented himself as such in any public or professional capacity. Misleading Information: The phrase "of Dominican descent" implies personal identification with, or cultural or national affiliation to, a heritage Brooke does not claim and has never publicly acknowledged. He has never spoken about this in interviews, nor does it appear on any verified public platform (including his social media). Conflict with Wikipedia Policy: Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy requires strict adherence to verifiable and non-misleading information, especially where personal and potentially sensitive content is concerned. Including an incorrect statement — even in the “Personal life” section — violates this principle. Primary Source Reliability: In the absence of reliable published secondary sources, direct clarification from a verifiable immediate family member should carry weight, particularly when attempting to correct a factual error introduced by a flawed external source. Again, I am happy to submit proof of my relationship to Brooke if requested. Given the above, I respectfully ask that the claim about Dominican descent be removed entirely from the article. At the very least, the entry should not rely on inaccurate or misleading sources and should not present speculative heritage as fact. If this matter cannot be resolved through Talk page consensus, I would appreciate guidance on how to escalate the issue. There must be a higher level of editorial review or appeal process available when Wikipedia content is demonstrably inaccurate and potentially damaging. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am happy to work with editors and administrators to ensure that Brooke’s article is accurate, fair, and policy-compliant. Sincerely, Kim Norton Mother of Brooke Norton-Cuffy Crescentsista (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, I commented at Talk:Brooke_Norton-Cuffy#Nationality/decent_or_whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use a large language model to generate requests or responses like this. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2025 (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.

Francesca Gino

@Pechmerle: accused me of at a minimum, a violation of NPOV and improper for BLP [1] for this edit to the Francesca Gino article. For context, Gino was accused of data fabrication, and after a lengthy investigation, Harvard released an over 1000 page report, finding that the allegations of data fabrication were true and it was improbable that anyone else but Gino was responsible for them, and put her on leave in 2023. A few months ago it belatedly decided it to fire her. I do not view the edit to be a violation of NPOV or BLP, given that assertion that Gino is responsible for the fabrication is extensively supported by evidence and Harvard fired her over it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Shane Jacobsen

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

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

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

Karma Loday Bhutia

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

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

Matthew Miller (spokesperson)

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

Richard Hanania

In the lead for the article: Between 2008 and the early 2010s, Hanania wrote for alt-right and white supremacist publications under the pseudonym Richard Hoste.[7][9] He acknowledged and disavowed his writing under the pseudonym when it was reported in 2023.[7][6] A number of journalists have said that Hanania continued to make racist statements under his own name.[5][10] At the bottom of the article it goes into more detail. The journalists being referred to are very left-wing opinion writers and I feel that should be noted, such as left-wing writers have said that... The talk page discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Hanania#Left-wing_writers_say_he_%22continues_to_make_racist_statements_under_his_own_name%22 In which I make the case and later another user MIMIR MAGNVS brings the receipts. 77.103.122.213 (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Having just read through all of that, “left-wing” should not be added, unless if you find reliable sources calling each of them left-wing. Which seems unlikely. Right now it is original research, as pointed out on that talk page, and is about living people. Definitely cannot be included.

That said, “Journalists and writers have cast doubt on whether Hanania has disavowed racism” should perhaps have “Some” before it, since some clearly don’t agree.

Additionally, this needs to be fixed: In September 2023, Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic: "People can and do change, even those with extreme views like these, but there’s not much evidence that happened here. As the writer Jonathan M. Katz noted in 2023, Hanania wrote, "These people are animals, whether they’re harassing people in subways or walking around in suits," in an angry tweet about Alvin Bragg indicting Daniel Penny for the killing of Jordan Neely. It is missing the ending quotation mark, seems to have been confusingly edited away from the original Atlantic quote (“angry tweet” is from there, but much of the rest is changed, and now we seemingly have “angry” in wiki voice). LordDiscord (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Natasha Bertrand

The following unsourced statement appears on the Natasha Bertrand page and appears to be unsubstantiated, biased, political conjecture that is arguably libelous.

"Later turned out the Hunter Biden laptop story was completely true and the the 50 CIA officials story she reported on was a concerted effort to cast doubt on the laptop story to sway an election."

The statement should be sourced (not opinion) or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.16.66 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Already removed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

MrBeast#Death of Tyler Wall

I am concerned that this section of the article MrBeast#Death of Tyler Wall is a BLP vio by implicitly suggesting that MrBeast is responsible for his death. The sources covering his death (which are mostly Indian and Pakistani, with only a handful of non-South Asian sources covering the issue e.g. [2], [3]) as far as I'm aware do not suggest this nor do they frame it as a "controversy", but a tragic occurrence. The man who died was the coach, not the man undergoing the weight loss challenge, so there's less reason to assume MrBeast is to blame. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Not the best source in the world, especially for a BLP, WP:NEWSWEEK says they have seen the death certificate, and reports the manner of death was an accident due to "Mitragynine Toxicity". I agree the wording is problematic in that section - News of the death had been covered up and concealed from the public - sourced to Mr. Beasts YouTube video, which does not say that at all. Honestly, I don't even think his death is DUE for inclusion on that page, that's the only mention of him on the entire page, and it appears Wall is a non-notable individual who died unexpectedly through no fault whatsoever of Mr. Beast. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I've removed that and the link to the Squid Games controversy, which isn't supported by any of the sources either; I would agree that probably the entire section could be removed as undue. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Jessica Brown Findlay

A user of Wikipedia repeatedly posts a wrong date of birth with an erroneous citation, and keeps reverting other users' attempts to correct this.

Jessica Brown Findlay was born in 1989, not 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.78.40 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link Jessica Brown Findlay Knitsey (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the date of birth? Knitsey (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Here is a source indicating the later date. (I'm not suggesting which one is correct.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC) Added: And lest with think this is some recent trimming of her age, here is a mid-2011 article positing her as 21, which is in line with the 1989 date, not 1987. That's the earliest age-pegging reference I find at newspapers.com. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@NatGertler I am unsure of the reliability of the existing source [4] although I have seen it used in the same way for other articles.

I wonder if it might be worth adding (with an editing note) that birth date is disputed and add the sources you provided? Knitsey (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:DOB would suggest listing both dates. However, I know I've seen discussions questioning the use of such born-this-day lists for this, as there have been signs that the dates are accumulated from insufficient source (including Wikipedia); I don't have the energy at the moment to go dig such conversations up.

More sources supporting the later date: 22 in late 2011, 23 in early 2013, 24 in early 2014... really, I'm not finding any not-a-birthday-list support for the earlier date. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I will leave it for a while to see if there is any more input and make an edit at a later point if not. Knitsey (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Original research: Here is a picture of her in The Guardian, dated 1991, in my view, it doesn't look like to me she is a two-year-old toddler in that photo, assuming her dob is 1989. She also implied that in 2006, she was aged 19, which is consistent with a 1987 dob. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Companies House lists "Jessica Rose BROWN-FINDLAY" with "Date of birth September 1987" as a British actor who is a director of a private company called "JBF1987 LTD" [5]. I suspect that this is going to be one of those cases where truth says 1987 but verifiability is stuck at 1989. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

We may well have the sourcing to list both dates and note the disparate sources; we don't have sufficient sourcing to declare 1987 "correct". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably the best solution, and one we have used many times before. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The Stage (registration needed, article text searchable on Google) gives her year of birth as 1987, no day or month. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Field of Screams (amusement park)

Due to this recent reporting in a RS, this article is likely to see some disruption. More eyes would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted the edit as it was unreferenced and, I hope this is correct, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to such information. I looked at the link above which was mentioned in the edit summary, when I searched for the allegations. I've also had a look for further referencing and ran into a few problems (I was also interupted by the dog wanting a walk)

The problems I've had are, the original piece has been regurgitated by several local news sources without adding anything to it. As I'm in the UK, quite a few sources in the US are not available to me so I can't check on their contents. It is annoying to say the least when it comes to referencing. Knitsey (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The original investigative reporting is from Spotlight PA which appears to be a reliable source. Knitsey is correct that subsequent reporting by other sources is just regurgitating the original report, adding nothing new. I think if other reliable sources corroborate the allegations with their own reporting, the matter should be mentioned in the article. The specific individual at the center of the allegations should certainly not be mentioned by name at this time, and any mention of the controversy on Wikipedia should not imply guilt. Cullen328 (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hard Concur. I also found the Spotlight PA article and that seems to be the main locus of discussion at this time per my own review. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the relevance of WP:EXCEPTIONAL here. WP:BLP on its own (in particular WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPCRIME) covers this more than adequately. But yes, we'd need more than a single source, regurgitated, to justify inclusion of anything on this, and we absolutely must not name individuals based on nothing more than allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

"Conspiracy theorist" is not sourced and not stated anywhere else other than the lead of this article, so it should be removed. I've tried on the talk page first but established editors weirdly refuse to follow guidelines. They also remove my talk page posts for no apparent reason 2A00:FBC:EF1E:67F7:85E7:7A1:8CF7:26C9 (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This has been resolved with the addition of sources and also with the identification of even more sources that may be added to the body at a future date. With thanks to the IP who was very reasonable about this at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Freya Fox

Main image is an AI generated image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.243.34 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It certainly looks suspect. Her hands look odd, for a start, and per a recent RfC [6], consensus is against using AI images for living persons. I see you've already started a discussion on the article talk page, so I suggest people respond there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Kayli Mills

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

Might need some more eyes, including on the talk page. Seems like Hoyoverse discourse is happening there. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)