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.

Helen Cornelius

Multiple sources have been adding information to Helen Cornelius indicating that she died yesterday. As of right now, I have been unable to find any reliable third-party sourcing confirming as such -- just a couple posts on Facebook, none of which seem to be from official accounts, or false positives of other people with the same name. I would like a few more eyes on this article until a reputable source can be found verifying her death. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

semi-protected for two days. Hopefully reliable sources will show up by then, or establish that it isn't true. Nthep (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nthep: right after you did, the account BradOlsonBemidji (talk · contribs), which had been dormant for two years, was re-activated to re-add the same unsourced content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

...and in good faith, another editor added a citation to Saving Country Music, which according to WP:A/S is not reliable. MusicRow is reputable and usually pretty prompt on obit pieces, so they might be worth keeping tabs on. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

MusicRow have published an obit now; ref added. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Killing of Austin Metcalf

Use of arrest report in Killing of Austin Metcalf

Surely we don't use these? Lots of use of Fox News, and one source to Newsweek. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the bar is set too low in our notability guidelines. For me, if this wouldn't be allowed because of WP:BLP1E, it shouldn't be allowed as an WP:EVENT article either. TarnishedPath^talk 10:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's all events... so I don't think it would be a good idea. Literally every event article onwiki would fail BLP1E, because they are all "one events". Don't think deleting the Kennedy assassination would be a great idea.

If I had my way we would ban all coverage of anything that happened in the past ten years. This would solve the news issue but will never happen. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with changing the guidelines so that anything recent doesn't cut it. Prolonged and ongoing coverage should be the minimum, not merely international or national coverage. TarnishedPath^talk 14:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the standards at NEVENT are fine. At least, I can't think of anything that would be better - it is already required that sourcing be sustained. People are just very heated about this one so the sourcing debates tend to be worse than usual. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

In theory you are never supposed to use legal documents of any kind to support any material about a living person whatsoever, however this rule is constantly flouted. I wouldn't do it! PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I removed the arrest report. The other sources from Fox News and Newsweek should be evaluated for reliability, and replaced with better sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf

There's been quite a bit of trolling by IPs posing sarcastic comments at length that have no productive value. See 1 & 2. These were created as new sections after the same trolling was mostly ignored at the ongoing RfC further up the talkpage. More eyes here would be appreciated. These kinds of comments don't belong on the talkpage. JFHJr (㊟) 03:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks also to @NatGertler for this revert. And to WP:TALKNO and WP:SOAPBOX. JFHJr (㊟) 03:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

More of the same today. JFHJr (㊟) 16:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they have been active on my talk page as well, implying that I am a liar, and flat out stating I am biased and being a troll, and accused me of being a censor on the article talk page. Thank you for keeping an eye on the article talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The article talkpage might be ripe for WP:RPP as to trolling. I also got two usertalk posts from the same anon under different IPs, but they weren't particularly negative, just playing dumb. JFHJr (㊟) 18:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

RPP request is in. JFHJr (㊟) 18:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

IP 107.222.64.119 (talk) got blocked for this for one week. If other IPs crop up, either repost at WP:RPP, contact blocking admin Daniel Case, or find your forum at WP:ANI, WP:SPI etc. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

RfC ongoing at talk

The RfC is ongoing regarding whether to include the name of the accused. More BLPN volunteers with experience are encouraged to participate. JFHJr (㊟) 00:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The RfC is still open. I'm posting here to keep this thread alive. It would still benefit from more input by experienced BLPN volunteers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein client list

Epstein with Ghislaine Maxwell and Bill Clinton, 1993

Multiple users have complained about the inclusion of this particular photo and description into the article claiming that it goes against BLP. I would like for the issue to become clarified here before it escalates into an edit war--Trade (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Radiohist, Dejstviebronson, Maddox121 ForgotHisPassword, Surtsicna, and Muaza Husni:--Trade (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this the first addition? I don't see how it, or any similar images, would suitable for the article at all, let alone in the lede. I certainly think it to be contentious material that should be removed and kept out per BLP. --Hipal (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Seems like the first addition. Some users claimed that having a photo of Clinton without also having a photo of Trump as well is what violates BLP. Although i must admit that feels like a red herring. Trade (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

No, it does not belong in the article, nor would a photo of Epstein with anyone else that gossip has suggested was a client (e.g., Trump), at least as long as the article remains focused on the client list. Trump and Clinton are living persons, and photos of them would imply that they're on the client list — a very contentious claim for which there is no RS backing. WP:BLP applies to content about living persons even if the article is not a biography. It's not a matter of somehow "balancing" a photo with a Democratic president and one of a Republican president (or any other kind of "balance"). Absent excellent sourcing, these photos of living persons simply don't belong. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

So... I guess we should have someone revdel the versions of the article with the photos from the article? Trade (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

By the way i hope by inclusion of the photo here does not violate "Do not copy and paste defamatory material here" considering how vaguely related it is to the subject of the article Trade (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm with FactOrOpinion on this matter. Adding any of the numerous photos of Epstein with anyone else is going to cause a problem with WP:BLP. I would suggest no photos are included. If the photo is removed, I would suggest adding an editing note about not adding them, although editing notes are often ignored. Knitsey (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The event is still in rapidly development. Hopefully we can get some photos other than "Epstein and random public figure" Trade (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest no photos are added for now. I think it would be in violation of BLP. Many, many people have been to events hosted by Epstein. Because of the contentious nature of the subject, I believe any photos may be perceived as guilt by association. Knitsey (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I would agree for any photos that don't contain exclusively public figures... But public figures are not privy to the same level of proactive BLP protection as regular people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It's the guilt by association and this idea that because there is a Clinton photo there should be a Trump one. As I understand it, the Trump photos are covered by copyright. Or at least the ones I can find are. Knitsey (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, Getty Images pretty much have a monopoly on those photos. Which is why it bothers me when people upload them to Commons anyways Trade (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

And that is allowed as long as we are following RS who make the guilt by association claim. Which they do here, that is the notable claim being made... That these public figures associated with these guilty parties. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Would just adding a photo whilst not commemting on guilt be ok? Im just thinking of a particulary litigious British celebrity who has been pictured with Epstein quite a few times. Being pictured with Epstein doesn't equate to being in any file. I realise Wikipedia:Future event exists, but I do think that heading off countless arguments by prohibiting (at least until the content of the files is released) the use of photos would be a good idea. Knitsey (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The only reason a picture should be included is if its directly related to the text in the article. A picture of someone not mentioned in the article should not be used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not going to bludgeon this so I will leave at, I don't think photos should be added until the file/s details are known. Knitsey (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Or just find a photo of something else other than Epstein with random public figures Trade (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

...You just agreed with what i said Trade (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Sigcov in RS is not gossip... "a very contentious claim for which there is no RS backing" doesn't appear to be accurate, especially as far as Trump is concerned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the Epstein file(s) rather than the Epstein client list? As of right now, the client list isn't known (and it's not clear that one exists), so there is no Sigcov of Trump being on it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Its the same topic, Epstein files redirects there and there is currently a discussion underway about changing the title to that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not the same topic. It's a set-subset relationship (the client list, if it exists, would be part of the file, but far from all of it). That a redirect exists does not imply that the two things are the same, or even that everyone agrees that the current target is the best target; and the reason that people are discussing whether to move the article is because they want to be able to include content about the files that isn't about the client list. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of what you personally believe we currently treat it as an alternative name for the same topic. That there is no client list is not a fact in your favor BTW. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure which editors are part of "we," but people who participate in WP:RFD clearly don't think that all redirects are the same topic as the target article, or there would be no reason to ever retarget any of them. And I don't know what "That there is no client list is not a fact in your favor BTW" means. First, we don't know if there's a client list. If no client list exists, then it's impossible for Trump or anyone else to be on it. If it does exist but hasn't (yet) been made public, then WP doesn't want to imply that Trump was a client, because we don't know, and saying that person X is on Epstein's client implies that person X was knowingly sleeping with (and perhaps paying to sleep with) sex trafficked girls, a really horrendous crime. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Then allow me to clarify... I would support including photos at whatever page we eventually have consensus to cover the files at. I also think "Epstein network" would work as a title for the overarching notable topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

We have to put our foot down at some point. Otherwise it just evolves into an infinite number of Epstein articles Trade (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any reason it would do that nor do I see "some point" as relevent if that point is surely not today or in the near future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah but this is the third time i see someone wanting to split Epstein article into another article so it's becoming somewhat of a trendTrade (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, its a top global news item. Now that its more directly linked to the current President of the USA a lot more people are paying attention and covering it globally who never even noticed when it was primarily the haunt of conspiracy theorists. I assume it will die down at some point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

A photo of Epstein alone would be okay, but not any photo of those believed to be on the list as that appears to be WP implying those ppl are on the list. Until the list is published, we should only give names in prose with clear attribution who is claiming g that the person is on the list. Masem (t) 22:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

agree with FactOrOpinion. Need strong evidence that the photo is linked to this list. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• That photo shouldn't be on the article as it would be a BLP violation, making a link between Clinton and the Epstein files without evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 07:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Protester during the Good Trouble Protest in DC, July 2025

• Can i add this to the article? @TarnishedPath:--Trade (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest not, unless we get some sort of good sourcing unequivocally stating that he is. TarnishedPath^talk 15:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The image description doesn't say that he is, though? Just that people were protesting against him not releasing the list

There are images in articles of protestors with signs calling Bush a war criminal so i'm not sure how this is any worse Trade (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The most prominent sign in that photo says that he's on the list. And it's not at all analogous. There are very credible discussions of scores of war crimes committed during the Bush administration (e.g., here), whereas there is zero evidence so far that an Epstein list even exists. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

So far only the government have denied the list exists so charactizing it as a myth or a hoax doesn't feel completely accurate Trade (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't characterize it as a myth or a hoax. I said there's no evidence so far. In other words, I'm not denying its existence; I'm saying that we don't know. Hopefully you understand the distinction I'm making. As for Musk, his tweet said "realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files." But the Epstein files ≠ Epstein's client list. The former definitely exist; the latter, if it exists, is a small subset of the former. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I have yet to see anywhere outside of ENWP make this distinction between Epstein files and Epstein list. Not sure how much it really matters for your average reader Trade (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It's extremely easy to find news media making this distinction. Here's an example. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Also there is already a quote from Elon highlighted in the article in which he explicitly makes this accusation against Trump so wouldn't that have to be removed as well? Trade (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

That goes way above and beyond the protections we extend to public figures. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Elaborate? Trade (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

We have a different presumption of privacy when it comes to public figures than non-public ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a matter of privacy. There is zero evidence for a client list so far, much less that a named individual is on the list. WP:SPECULATION, WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL apply to public figures too. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Did the protest happen? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Why? The protester is holding a sign with text equivalent to "[name redacted] is on the list of pedophiles who raped teenage girls who'd been sex trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein." It's a contentious and speculative BLP claim. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Its neither contentious or speculative that protesters made these claims. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say that it's contentious or speculative that protesters made these claims. Do you have a response to what I did say? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying that contentious and speculative things about public figures do get covered when they're significant and have current real impacts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

But you still should not write: '. . . there is a supposed list of alleged despicable people, and he's one that maybe on the list. . .' when we know one is not the story. BLP information can never be unbalanced for anyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe that I ever wrote that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

It was an 'exemplar' not a "quote". The point being to illustrate undue emphasis on one living person. Also, change "you" to "we" for the same point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

That isn't how exemplars work because nobody has written anything equivalent or even close. If the coverage puts emphasis on that living person than their inclusion here is not undue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that "contentious and speculative things about public figures do get covered when they're significant and have current real impacts," just like I agree "Its neither contentious or speculative that protesters made these claims." Both of those statements deflect from our actual disagreement about why I think it's inappropriate to include both the image with Clinton (unless the article becomes one about the Epstein files rather than the Epstein client list) and the image with the protester's sign alleging the equivalent of "[name redacted] is on the list of pedophiles who raped teenage girls who'd been sex trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein." The protester's sign makes a contentious and speculative BLP claim. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Except that the speculation on that name being on the list has been a key issue in several recent events surrounding that person. Our word g in prose must be careful to not (ETA) explicitly state that name is on the list, but it would be silly to omit the news coverage age related to the broader speculation and claims that name is on the list that triggered multiple events within the govt.

The core danger of the OP question is that a lede image showing Epstein with any other figure may be made construed as Wikipedia confirming that person on the list, the reader only seeing that picture and none of the prose. Masem (t) 18:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Not just that, undue emphasis on that person and not the others, supposedly on the list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean to say "Our word g in prose must be careful not to explicitly state that name is on the list"? Horse Eye's Back and I have been discussing the second photo, where a protester is holding a sign is explicitly saying that the name is on the list.

I don't have a problem with including what RSs are saying about the question of whether such a list exists, nor what they're saying about speculation re: whose names might be on it, and how that may be influencing what content from the Epstein files might be released. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

yes, I meant to say not, I have added that with an ETA. Masem (t) 19:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

And I talk about the second picture below, where I think if it's more buried in the body (and not the first free licensed image) that a reader would have to be purposely ignoring the prose to get to, that would be less of the issue compared the the previously suggested lede image. Masem (t) 19:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

What i am against is the idea that BLP somehow prohibits images of protesters bearing signs containing personal attacks. It comes off as a very extreme interpretation Trade (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not attacks in general. It's this very specific attack, which is both extremely contentious (it also involved uncharged felonies) and is totally speculation right now. Again: that specific sign is equivalent to "[name redacted] is on the list of pedophiles who raped teenage girls who'd been sex trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein." FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

We could have a picture with a sign that said those exact words... It isn't us saying it... We're just covering what other people are saying. Remember wikipedia is not censored, see for example our coverage of 9/11 truth movement which would be drastically reduced if we treated George Bush as other than a public figure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

WP can say is not censored, but we very clearly censor some content in the sense of omitting it even if it's relevant (e.g., we do not take BLP content from court transcripts, even if it's attributed to the speaker, we often omit the names of non-notable family members). You think it's OK to include a photo essentially saying "[name] is a rapist of sex-trafficked teens," as long as it's not in wiki-voice, and I don't, due to WP's policies. I have no problem with protester claiming it, but I think WP's policies preclude it being included here, especially when the photo doesn't seem to have been printed in an RS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

And I don't find your analysis of P+G terribly competent or compelling, guess we just have to leave it here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that the image is okay, but under several conditionals: it has to be deep in the body, as the first image on a section calls Protests or similar to be clear that it's not a section making factual claims about the list, and that the caption is similarly clear that the protestor are making claims about who is on the list. That the name show has been soe ulated to be on this list is a huge story from the last few weeks, and to not mention this in the prose (carefully worded to avoid claiming as fact) should be present, in addition to the protests in regards to this claimed inclusion. If needed, the image can be edited to blurb the name but it doesn't seem necessary given what has been reported on this. Masem (t) 14:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll note that BLP is more than Public Figure, it is also about implication and UNDUE emphasis. The photo uptop should not be in the article, as others have said. The protest photo maybe but perhaps blur the name. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC) I just saw there is another protest photo already in the article, so I don't see a need for another. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The big question that I think needs to be asked but hasn't been is whether or not reliable sources use these images in their coverage of the topic. I don't know if we can really argue about these other points without establishing that first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources have used photos of Epstein standing with public figures as part of their coverage of the topic. So... Trade (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If the leading RS do it then there doesn't seem to be a valid BLP complaint here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Whether RSs do or don't depends on what "the topic" is. As I noted elsewhere, "Epstein list" ≠ "Epstein files." Go ahead: see if you can find an RS that focuses on the former and includes an image of Epstein with a public figure other than Ghislaine Maxwell. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thats your own little crusade and here on wikipedia you're wrong... If Epstein files redirects to Epstein list then the host article for the topic Epstein files is Epstein list. If you disagree your only path is to get the redirect target changed, just make a stand alone page for the Epstein files if you're right then both are highly notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It's a fact, not a crusade, and no, I'm not wrong. There are many redirects where the redirect and the target are not the same topic, but instead the target is either a subset or a superset of the redirect, or the two intersect in another way. WP:R even notes "Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include: ... Subtopics or other topics that are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)" Often ≠ always. Consider Cube root of 2 → Doubling the cube, currently discussed at WP:RFD, where editors are inclined to keep the current target. The two concepts have a mathematical connection, but the cube root of 2 (an irrational number) simply isn't the same mathematical concept as doubling the cube (a geometric problem). Many redirects exist because concept A is related to concept B but only one of them has an article, it mentions the other concept, and someone looking for the latter can learn something about it by reading about the former. And there's already a discussion at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein client list#Requested move 17 July 2025 about moving the article to Epstein files, with Epstein client list as a section within it. If they were actually just two names for the same thing, the latter could not be only a section of the former, and you wouldn't find other editors making claims like "'Epstein files' denotes the larger body of government documents concerning Epstein" and "article's content focuses on the narrower scope of a possible client list, and not the broader scope of all files related to Epstein." But if you are unwilling to accept the difference, OK. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

But they can be the same thing, which likely turns on why it matters. Certainly, in general, prosecution/investigation files don't matter, nor do these files really matter as a whole, they matter because of what's guessed to be in them, centered on alleged embarrassment or worse for the rich/powerful/connected/celebrity names (a list of names, if you will) supposedly being kept secret by said powers-that-be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not certain that I'm correctly interpreting the referent of "they", but if "they" refers to the Epstein client list and the Epstein files, no, they cannot be the same thing; the former (if it exists) is a proper subset of the latter. There's no question that the Epstein files exist. Some parts of them have already been released (see, e.g., these Commons files). They contain lots and lots of other kinds of information/documents: photos and videos (some of Epstein's and Maxwell's victims, some with other CSAM, some that are sexual but not involving minors, perhaps some that aren't sexual), deposition testimony, Epstein's address books, travel logs, employee lists, financial documents, probably lists of physical evidence taken into custody, etc. I strongly disagree that these things don't matter. Many would have been key pieces of evidence had Epstein lived and gone to trial. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

But files are not what matter, every case has files tons and tons of them. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you give a couple of examples of things that you think do matter but that are not in the files? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The files as a whole don't matter, as I already said. An article that aims to give a file catalogue here is perhaps among the worst ideas imaginable. Don't bury the lead, even under a ton of documents. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying that everything in the files matter. But the files contain some things that are significant / matter, and "Epstein client list" ≠ "Epstein files." If, for example, Michael Wolff's claim is true that Epstein had Polaroid photos in his safe of "Trump with girls of an uncertain age at Epstein's Palm Beach House: ... [two in which] topless girls are sitting on Trump's lap, and then a third in which he has a stain on the front of his pants and the girls are kind of kind of pointing at it, sort of bent over laughing ...," then that set of photos is significant if the girls are minors and/or were trafficked.

You said "they can be the same thing." I told you that it wasn't clear to me what "they" referred to. I made a guess. You didn't tell me "no, that's not what I meant; I meant ___," so I'm assuming that my guess was correct. I explained why — in that case — "they can be the same thing" is false: a set is never the same thing as a proper subset. Never. This is a basic mathematical fact. If you meant something else by "they," I'd appreciate your clarifying.

I haven't seen anyone suggesting that an Epstein files article be a catalogue of what's in the files. My only other main point is that we shouldn't include a photo with a protester carrying a sign essentially saying "[name] is on the list of pedophiles who raped teenage girls who'd been sex trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein." That a protester said it does not make it appropriate per WP:BLP. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Is File:Good Trouble Protest - Release the Epstein Files (54674892253).jpg acceptable per WP:BLP? Trade (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Not ok. The article is about the client list and the events surrounding the client list. No photos should be included based on association with Epstein or speculation about a list -- any photos of people in the article other than Epstein and Maxwell would need to be directly tied not to the list's hypothetical contents but to the events and discourse about the lists. i.e. to the extent there's a photo of Trump, it would be for his role in debates over the existence/release of materials, not for his alleged connection to the list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Nina Power asking for deletion of her article due to poor coverage

Account claiming to be Nina powers is asking for deletion, claims article is “filled with lies and unsubstantiated claims made by a severely disingenuous and malicious third party”.

AFD already started here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nina_Power_(2nd_nomination)#Nina_Power Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Note that the article has been substantially updated since deletion was requested and it was AfD'd. It looked like this[1] when deletion was requested. Jahaza (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman, do we know if they have confirmed their identity? Knitsey (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

full discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nina_Power#Request_to_Delete_Page

but it seems the Nina Power twitter account is also complaining about the wikipedia page, so probably is her. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I do apologise, I missed the twitter link. @Bluethricecreamman thank you for pointing that out. Knitsey (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward deleting. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Per [2], it appears Ms. Power is no longer pursuing deletion. We should just let the AFD run its course. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Repeated WP:BLPCRIME vio of accusation against WP:NPF BLP

See WP:ANI#BLP violation related to accusation for background as I reported it as a conduct issue originally due to an user willfully reverting my removal of the material. The change was removed again @Simonm223: during the ANI discussion ([3] & [4]) and that should have been the end of it.

However, another IP user has just re-inserted the content this morning ([5] and both the Benjamin Cohen (journalist) BLP article & [6] related company PinkNews article), so I guess this is the next best venue to bring this to a closure.

The concerned change is about removal of allegations against an otherwise low-profile individual (Since notability != public figure) that have been reported on Dec 10 2024, with almost zero WP:SUSTAINED coverage thereafter (other than a statement of refutation on Dec 17, referencing an ongoing counter-investigation), indicating that the event was not notable as failing significance beyond routine WP:BREAKINGNEWS coverage per WP:NOTNEWS and died down immediately thereafter with no charges or suits having been filed in over half a year. As we err on the side of privacy in such a case of allegation without any follow-up, I removed ([7]) the content in line with standing understanding of WP:BLPCRIME at BLPN as it basically amounts to WP:LIBEL under the presumption of innocence at this point and were not a newsorg. Raladic (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I suggest starting RfCs on the articles' talk pages. Some1 (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It's a policy question and concerns two articles, so a centralized policy discussion should be able to resolve this here. Raladic (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Blpcrime isn't a hard prohibition, and generally it is decided on a per-case basis whether material should be included based on the exact situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Adding a link to my comment when it was raised at ANI, which I think provides additional relevant context, namely that there's a high level of coverage and the individual is notable and a public figure.

As I said in the thread the argument really is whether it is WP:DUE and when there's that breadth of coverage and the PM weighs in its hard to argue it isn't. Void if removed (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The prime minister of England is not included in our notability standards. Furthermore Pink News is one of the few outlets that reports critically on the weird obsession with trans people expressed by the current British government which makes this whole situation seem like a transphobic retaliation against critics. That will influence how due Mr. Starmer's uneducated opinion is. Simonm223 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The prime minister of England is not included in our notability standards

It speaks to WP:DUE though, and WP:PROPORTION. An RS reporting a random nobody giving their opinion has less weight than the head of the government commenting.

This generated lots of coverage over many days, across a range of sources, including internationally, about a public figure and a high profile business he is CEO of, which reached the point the PM commented on it, and there were two in-depth analysis articles after the 17th, and an employment law analysis in January. All of this was in the ANI thread, I don't know why this additional sourcing and longer timeline was omitted when reopening it here.

There's no crime so it isn't WP:BLPCRIME and in any case he's a public figure - who cofounded and chaired the campaign that brought in gay marriage among many other high profile acts - it isn't WP:LIBEL because it is all from reliable sources and sparked by a BBC documentary investigation that is all still online, and none of the other cited policies are relevant AFAICT. Void if removed (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

All of this was in the ANI thread, I don't know why this additional sourcing and longer timeline was omitted when reopening it here. - are you trying to argue that 2 or 3 articles from a few days later are a "longer timeline" that would pass sustained coverage? Especially when one is clearly just trying to grab some readers with speculations about some uncertain future (which didn't materialize). When we talk about sustained, we are talking about coverage like a month or more later of events that followed the statement of allegation. Or in this case, we'd expect there would have been charges or lawsuits filed. None of which happened.

There is no singular definition of crime and in general it is the wrongdoing of a person against a law. Incidentally since this is about a British BLP - English law considers wrongs and only secondarily thereafter the differentiation between civil and criminal applications based on intent (mens rea) and doesn't have a criminal code.

Wikipedia has long and regularly interpreted any accusation of breaking a law to fall under WP:BLPCRIME, including erring on the side of caution and not including such accusations, whether that's the allegation of breach of civil law or criminal law (with whatever that means in each country). Some examples from the archives: here, here, here, or here, here, whether that was accusations of sexual or financial misconduct. Relatedly: category RFC for related label issues. Raladic (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me that he is a non-public figure. He was an on-air news correspondent, wanted his work to be easily found (i.e., chose to go by Benjamin rather than Ben "partly to ensure that his reports are found on the internet," so as not to be buried by search results for Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's, or a popular athlete Ben Cohen). He co-founded a very public same-sex marriage campaign, and his photo appears in one of the videos produced for it (and I don't know if he appears in any other the publicity for the campaign). He founded a well-known Looking at internet search results prior to 8/2024, pulls up a lot of results that indicate seeking out public attention in a sustained way (engaging in debates before a public audience, giving non-BLP1E interviews, his marriage was covered by some of the press, ...). I'd like to hear why you believe he's not a public figure. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, let's do a source analysis for WP:LOWPROFILE:

Google News - Search is pretty small, so won't take too long:

Ignoring the handful of articles that reported the breaking news in question in Dec 2024, and some about the 3 other people with the same name we are left with:

Company spokesperson coverage:

• Pressgazette 2023 company coverage
• The Media Leader 2023 routine CEO opening speech of the company awards ceremony coverage
• pressgazette 2022 routine spokesperson of PN article in press trade journal
• Equalities minister hits out at LGBT+ magazine CEO in parliament 2022 politician rant
• Business Insider 2021 on running a business with multiple sclerosis
• PinkNews 2020 Spokesperson article of company 15-yr anniversary
• BBC 2017 company coverage
• The Guardian 2015 election coverage on quoting a PN article by BLP about LGBT polling

Person coverage:

• HELLO! from 2020 as human-interest profile of gay couple (two years after the wedding)
• PinkNews 2018 wedding from PN itself (though there are no quotes, so might just have been without his involvement).
• Jewish News 2013 opinion article on being jewish and gay by BLP itself
• Evening standard 2013 opinion article on gay marriage legalization by BLP itself
• BBC 2010 article of "what became of dotcot millionaire"

Almost all of those handful of sources are him acting in a capacity as spokesperson as CEO of PN, which falls under low-profile of promotional activities and Eminence - Such a person may be notable anyway yet still low-profile (e.g., if generally acknowledged to be a preeminent authority in a particular field, or a CEO of a notable but not market-dominant company, etc., but not particularly self-promotional). and Media attention May have been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication. May have been interviewed by a major news source...as a spokesperson for an employer, representing that party and not themselves.

As WP:LPI points out, profiles can also change over time and while he appears to have been occasionally public in his early dotcom days and some special interest coverage in the past, it pretty squarely falls into Behavior pattern and activity level - Has always avoided high-profile activity. Or may have attempted to maintain a high profile unsuccessfully in the past, or successfully for a limited time (and may be notable as a result of either), but has demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity since then, with very sparse coverage to begin with, and the few profiles he's been in or has written opinions of having been about aspects/groups he cares about (being LGBTQ+/gay, Jewish, person with MS), and the last coverage on "him" as a person from many years ago in 2020, so it really doesn't look like he's anywhere near WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Raladic (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't assume that you've found all of the relevant sources. Some others that aren't in your list:

• Jewish Chronicle - 2012, discusses his video about being gay and Jewish
• Queen Elizabeth's School - 2021, alumni profile
• Oxford Union - 2013, participant in in-person public debate about gay parenting
• his Youtube channel - old videos (I'm not going to watch them to determine the topics)
• The Org - 2023, "Meet the Team Behind The World's Most Influential LGBTQIA Publication, PinkNews"
• Wired - 2010, "Meet Ben Cohen: The 27-year-old teenage millionaire," written by Cohen
• Youtube - 2012, "It Gets Better: Benjamin Cohen on being LGBT & Jewish and why 'gay cures' don't work," for the Trevor Project
• BBC - 2017, "Gay Times editor suspended over offensive tweets," not about Cohen, just one example out of many where his response is sought/included in an article about someone else; another example is The Drum - 2022, "‘We know when brands just want to make money’: Pink News CEO issues Pride warning"

There were a bunch of other results, but I'm not going to keep going through them. Just noting that your list isn't comprehensive. I'm not saying that he's definitely a public figure, only that I don't think it's as clear-cut as you do. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, so basically mostly more company spokesperson of PN coverage, and otherwise older news. It looks like he has done little public engagement outside of PN company CEO representative related interviews after 2013 (), so the above summary is only strengthened by this showing that it is clearly a behavioral pattern that he as an individual person has kept a low-profile individually thereafter, outside of his role as spokesperson of PN, so it still looks pretty clear-cut. Raladic (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

My point was that your source analysis omitted many sources. And mine did too, because I simply do not care enough about this to keep going through the many other sources that came up in my search. Neither one of us has any way of knowing what those other sources would show. I also don't know: is PinkNews Media considered a market-dominant company? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

is PinkNews Media considered a market-dominant company? - it doesn't even make the cut UK news market share analysis across print, broadcast and online and would be somewhere in the 10% "other", so that would be a no. Raladic (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't consider the relevant market to be the UK news market in general. I consider the relevant market to be LGBTQ+ news. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

This describes it as the world’s largest LGBTQ+ website. Void if removed (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Then I'd say he satisfies "High-profile: Has sought or holds a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in ... a business market." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The article you just cited is an oxymoron by itself, saying that their future is in jeopardy at the same time as claiming world's largest is an unlikely combination.

Note that Market domination means economic domination in the literal sense of the word - "Market dominance is the control of a economic market by a firm. A dominant firm possesses the power to affect competition and influence market price. ... whereby a dominant firm can behave independent of their competitors or consumers, and without concern for resource allocation." - that does not fit for one that is affected by a single accusation of a scandal. Especially when the company clearly isn't doing so well. When we talk about Market domination position of an organization/product, we're talking about Android phone market dominance, or Microsoft with PCs, aka where regulators sometimes step in with antitrust cases due to misuse of a dominating position without regard for competitors. Note that the claim for "world's largest" comes from themself, you'll find that The Advocate (magazine) makes the very same claim, just as many other organizations that use various permutations of "leading news". Raladic (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

My feeling is this is not DUE for the PN article. It might become DUE if more comes of this such as reforms at the site or lawsuits etc. It probably is due at Cohen's article give that it appears to have significant coverage. An actual crime hasn't been accused. If included it should be done carefully as to not confirm the allegations as true. I don't think this is an outright BLP violation and may not be one at all (I'm not convinced one way or the other). Rather I would put it in the DUE bucket and look at it from that perspective. If this is recent material and nothing comes of it then likely not due. If something becomes of this (reputational harm, loss of current job etc) then I'm more likely to feel it's DUE. Springee (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Springee’s comment on the possibility of ’loss of current job’ – this is not going to happen to Cohen, since he is running the organisation. His husband was suspended from his position in the NHS in December 2024 [8]

I have not been able to find out what happened about the suspension, but I see that in his profile on Linked In [9] he describes himself as Chief Operating Officer at PinkNews, and talks about transitioning from medicine to media. So it looks like the complaints have had some permanent effect. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Not quite the same, but Cohen did also lose his longstanding position at a charity as a result. Void if removed (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Replying to both you and @Sweet6970, but given the above analysis (1, 2, 3), which strongly points in the affirmation that they are indeed WP:NPF's, particularly his husband, who hasn't passed notability and has no article to begin with (so I think there was no question about him), and thus your willful comments of furthering negative commentary under WP:NPF Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. are running afoul of WP:BLPTALK, which you like to cite yourself regularly, so I suggest you remove them. We always err on the side of caution with regards to BLPs. Raladic (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Nil Einne, a non-administrator, has now unilaterally and without consensus removed the entire section from Benjamin Cohen (journalist) with the threatening edit summary: "two editors have raised good faith BLP concerns. Per WP:BLPRESTORE please establish consensus before restoring. Any further reversions without consensus could lead to page or site blocks" [10]. An equal if not greater number of good-faith editors have pointed out (in the ANI thread and here) that the information has gotten major coverage in multiple sources, and that BLPCRIME does not apply here because harassment is not a crime (not to mention Cohen is arguably a public figure).

  What needs to happen instead is sensible discussion on the article's talk page (which has never happened despite the OP's opening threads on both ANI and here) reaching some sort of consensus, and then if no consensus is achieved, an RFC should be opened. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  which has never happened despite the OP's opening threads on both ANI and here - did you miss the discussion right above this comment that carefully went through the policy?

  I'd think that with over 90,000 edits you'd be well aware that WP:VNOT/WP:ONUS dictates that if editors raise a concern that policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted. - The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

  The burden of proof does not lie with editors who have removed content under good-faith analysis of policies. It stays ommitted unless the burden is overcome, especially so in WP:BLP cases: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. So, when we have disputed content, we err on the side of removal per WP:QUO until and unless it can be proven for inclusion.

  I'm honestly a bit lost for words on how you just screamed at @Nil Einne and recommend you strike your comment. Raladic (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  If there has been a good faith objection on BLP grounds then the material requires an affirmative consensus to include. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  While I think the material may be due at the BLP article, I strongly agree with the above. It shouldn't be restored until a consensus to include has been established. Springee (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Softlavender: What SFR said. I have no personal opinion on the inclusion or exclusion of the material, but it's became clear there are good faith objections on BLP grounds and therefore the standards of BLPRESTORE reasonably apply and an affirmative consensus is required for inclusion. Any editor who wants to regularly edit material about living persons should really be aware of that. Since there's no clear consensus either way at the moment, the discussion on inclusion of the material should continue whether here or on the talk pages using an RfC or whatever else if need be, but until that consensus is found, the material needs to stay out. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

No matter what decision happens with Benjamin Cohen, his husband has only one other mention on Wikipedia at all (him being Cohen's husband) so he would certainly meet any reasonable definition of low profile we would use. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

 Administrator note This has made its way onto RfPP, and am I extremely reluctant to shut down editing in what appears to be a good faith content dispute. That said, and out of an abundance of caution as there do appear to be BLP concerns, I am inclined to apply Extended Confirmed Editing Restrictions to the pages for 30 days. It is my belief that this is going to have to be resolved via a broader discussion, likely involving a WP:RfC in order to gain a proper consensus. I will leave it to those involved in the debate to open the RfC. For now I ask that the controversial claims not be re-added w/o consensus. As I am acting in my capacity as an admin, I take no position on the issues currently being debated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I posted the following comments below on the talk page of the Cohen article Talk:Benjamin Cohen (journalist) and was subsequently advised by another editor to go to this centralized BLPN discussion:

Regarding the removal from the article of accusations made against Cohen, reported in reliable sources such as BBC News, I do agree with a comment that Sweet6970 made in a recent edit summary that Cohen is not a low-profile individual – there is already an article on him. The content about the accusations is appropriately sourced. The BBC News reference which reported the accusations in December 2024 stated that more than 30 current and former members of staff made allegations, which in my view is a significant number of individuals making allegations. The BBC reported the Prime Minister's spokesperson had described the reports as "very concerning". I don't think the sourced content needs to be removed from the article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Please note that the standard for whether a person is a low-profile person is very different from whether a person is notable. There are plenty of low-profile people who are notable. There are even more non-notable high-profile people. Mr. Starmer has absolutely no expertise in which we should consider his comments in the context of adjudicating BLP policies. You'd be just as valid to ask a random punter at the local pub. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

footnote

References

Notes

Removed امیر قرآن page

This article refers to the direction of a person, but this film does not exist visually, and instead of the film page, the page is tagged with gatherings of Iranians and Americans, interviews are tagged in sources from 10 years ago, but there is no video.  This page uses the name of the book religion and politics.  At the same time, I can deceive the readers with his photos and clothes, if he is not a director or a political figure.  I wanted to do it myself, but I didn't know, dear manager, please clear the page.  Thanks Wiki Wikinilland (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article in question. Thanks. JFHJr (㊟) 20:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Wikinilland, can you please provide an article link? The Arabic script "[A/E]m[i/e/ee]r Q[u/a/0]r['][a/ā]n" in your post could be latinized many ways, and I could not find what you were talking about. JFHJr (㊟) 23:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Reza Ghassemi

is fake award and any album رضا قاسمی

im searching persian in google and spotify and old iranian music nothing find music of reza ghasemi just find 3 4 voice music of he ... im delet award but writer edition to this please check it ... Wikinilland (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Your comment about particular content belongs at Talk:Reza Ghassemi. This forum is for talkpage discussions that fail to result in a consensus. JFHJr (㊟) 20:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Gemma Galdón-Clavell

Gemma Galdón-Clavell's Wikipedia page in all languages says she "was elected to the Ashoka Fellowship", but she's been long removed from Ashoka due to corruption. Ashoka hasn't made any official statements, but Ms. Galdón-Clavell has been removed from the list of fellows in the Spanish site (https://www.ashoka.org/es-es/emprendedores-ashoka) and the international one as well (https://www.ashoka.org/en-us/ashoka-fellows). I've corrected the information, but my correction was deleted without any reference to back it up. How can this issue be solved? Marta.vrg (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The refs look correct as of publication. Updates (or reasons for removal) should be supported by reliable sources at the time of updating or removal. Discussions about article content should start at the article talkpage, and OP should be patient for an answer. It's not necessary to escalate here at this time because there is no failure to find consensus. Without a countervailing reliable source, the best position you can take for removal is that the content is based on WP:PRIMARY sources and is thus WP:UNDUE without needing to discuss whether the information is outdated. Forbes is also a crappy ref; see WP:FORBES. JFHJr (㊟) 20:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I made the removals that I recommended above. Further discussion at talkpage. Please. JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Margaret Sheil

Yesterday I reverted series of 3 edits from one IP who added their negative opinions of Margaret Sheil. The one citation supplied lists a small number of publications by Sheil but there is nothing to indicate that this is a complete list of her publications to support the criticism being made. To me, it was a WP:BLP violation and hence I reverted it. Today I see the IP has reverted it back. As I also worked at that university, I am also concerned that some people may think I have WP:COI because of that "same institution" connection (although we were not both there at the same time and AFAIK we met only once at a meeting about 15 years ago where we were introduced, but had no further contact). My revert was based on my concerns as a Wikipedian for our BLP policies, nothing else. But, to avoid any accusation about COI, I would like to hand this off to others to assess and handle accordingly. Thanks. Kerry (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I have undone the edit (as well as doing some other clean-up of the page.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran

This is pretty much a hagiography and needs a lot of work to make it encyclopaedic, which might be resisted by SPAs attached to it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Richard Werner

He has recently appeared on the Tucker Carlson podcast. The Wikipedia articles on him and his book seem entirely WP:PROMOTIONAL with almost zero references and crazy statements (one article states his book sold more than Harry Potter!). I've tagged the articles and cleaned some of the most egregious stuff but I don't have a lot of experience on this. Someone should probably look into deleting those articles entirely. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 07:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

If anyone escalates to AfD, please leave a link here. JFHJr (㊟) 23:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Koushik Kar

Report about line no. 8 of the article Koushik Kar referenced below under quotation-

'In March 2021, after joining the Bharatiya Janata Party, Kar was removed from the cast of a play about the 2015 Dadri lynching.[6][7]'

1. The play name is not specifically mentioned in the above piece of information, which creates it a contentious material.

2.poor quality source cited to establish link between 2015 dadri lynching and the play from which subject was removed.

3. The context of the information is not nutral, wrt biographical article about a living subject.

The play from which the subject was removed has no connection with 2015 dadri lynching incident - is based on Late utpal dutt's age old drama "Ghum Nei" written way in the 1970s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E0:103B:2C68:985A:86FF:FE36:9849 (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Research about verifiability in biographies

I realize this may be a bit out of the realm of what is usually posted here but I think talk page watchers may be interested in what this article has to say. I would say its main limitation is that it only relies on what can be verified in "publically accessible sources". While they elaborate on this distinction and say that paywalled sources are legitimate, it makes it a bit difficult to trust the overall statistics without knowing what's entirely unsupported/what's just cited to a paywalled source. I'd assume the former is more common than the latter but actual numbers would be helpful. If 20% of 100,000 claims in articles about people aren't supported by their citations, that's a pretty dire situation. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The use of LLMs in producing the dataset and analyzing the claims is also a limitation. The research is also limited to biographies but not specifically living persons. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that but it sounds like each of the claims were also verified by humans (e.g. the one table?) so I was less concerned about that aspect than I otherwise would be.... and I'm starting to think I was wrong about that now that I'm looking a bit more closely. My concentration is less great with wisdom teeth pain. Apologies if this was much ado about nothing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

This also looks like a preprint, so WP wouldn't treat it as an RS, though we don't have to keep to that for purposes of discussion. With respect to WP's internal expectations, we don't actually require that all statements be sourced. The requirements are a bit more lenient: content has to be verifiable, sourced content has to be sourced to an RS, unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed, challenged material must be sourced to an RS or removed, ...

Re: verified by humans, most weren't: "we conduct a pilot human annotation on a set of 160 body claims obtained from 10 entities" (an entity = an article on a notable person), out of all the possible claims in such an article and 1500 articles total for their LLM assessment. They also noted "Our principle transformation of the original Wikipedia articles consists in the decomposition of claims, which is performed by an LLM (GPT-4o-mini), and which can result in subclaims that misrepresent the article’s original content and thus (potentially) facts about the subject" (emphasis added). I don't trust LLM assessments.

I'll add that it doesn't surprise me that a fair number of body claims aren't supported by publicly accessible sources, and a fair number of lead claims not supported by the body. Not only is there the issue of sources that aren't publicly accessible, and the WP P&Gs I noted above, but the sheer act of repeated editing can decrease sourcing (as well as increasing it, of course). For example, someone adds lead statement L, which is supported by body statement B, which is sourced to source S. But then someone comes along as decides to remove B and S, but they don't notice that L is still in the lead, so it stays there without support. Or body claims B1 and B2 are in the same paragraph, sourced to S at the end of the paragraph. Someone edits the article so that B1 and B2 are now in separate paragraphs, but neglects to make sure that each is sourced to S (that is, they just leave S where it was originally). Or body claim B is sourced to S, and someone edits B, thinking that the wording is better, but actually shifting the meaning sufficiently that S no longer actually serves as a source, even though it still appears in the article as the source. Or body claim B is sourced to S, and S did support B, but S is now a dead link. Etc. Most of us aim to do good work, but it's still a flawed system. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Two other points, now that I've skimmed the entire article:

1. They say that they limited their sources search to "publicly accessible sources"/"publicly available sources"/"publicly accessible cited sources". Their meaning of "publicly accessible" seems to be "available online", which to my eyes is a strange interpretation of "publicly available" (e.g., I'd say that a book at a library or a paywalled article are publicly available). It's certainly different than WP's definition of "published": "made available to the public in some form." They should also make it clear that they're always referring only to cited sources, not any sources available online.
2. I only took a look at the first example they gave, and their assessment is clearly wrong. The current WP text is "In 2017, Methane Momma, a short film directed by Alain Rimbert, featured Van Peebles and his narration of poetic work with accompaniment of music by The Heliocentrics.[47][48][49]". (I'm omitting the references. The third link was currently dead, but I found an Internet Archive copy and have just replaced it. It looks like the statement and three sources have been there since 2018, and the only editing change since then was a shift in where "Methane Momma" appeared in the sentence.) The LLM excerpted the claim "Methane Momma is a short film directed by Alain Rimbert." So far, so good. But either a human or the LLM scored this as -0.7, meaning "partly refuted" (scores range from -1=fully refuted to 1=fully supported). I'm guessing that it was an LLM. In assessing it, the LLM appears to have attended only to the second of the three sources. The claim is wholly supported by the third source, and "Methane Momma is a short film directed by Alain Rimbert" is also supported by the first source, where even the first source can show that it's a short=40 min. film, if you click through to a second page. So this claim is accurate, was totally confirmed by the third source when written, and even before I updated the dead link, it was partially supported by the first source. It should at least have gotten a positive score even if less than 1, and a human checking this could have been able to find the IA copy and tell that the claim was fully supported. I have to admit, it surprises me that in their very first example, there's a flaw. Never mind, I think I misinterpreted the purpose of the examples, though I still have questions about how they were generated. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Marietta

To Whom It May Concern,

I am contacting you as the subject of a Wikipedia article currently titled Jon R. Marietta Jr. The page in question is being used in a malicious and defamatory manner and has become a tool for political attacks during an active election cycle.

The article violates multiple key policies:

It relies on unreliable and politically biased sources.

It lacks meaningful, independent, and secondary sourcing to establish notability.

It includes defamatory framing designed to cause reputational harm.

The page is maintained by anonymous editors with clear bias, and its creation appears timed to inflict political damage.

As such, I am formally requesting a review and deletion of the article under Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons and Harassment guidelines.

Please let me know what steps are required on my end to move this request forward. I am happy to provide documentation or additional context as needed.

Sincerely, Jon R. Marietta Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmarietta (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it has been moved to drafts and most of the information removed. See Draft:Jon Marietta. Pinging @ChildrenWillListen: as they removed most of the information and may want to add something. Knitsey (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Should have pinged you @Jonmarietta. Knitsey (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Never realized this reached the BLP noticeboard, but while we're here, I recommend taking a look at Drbsinclair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has added similar controversies to other articles, with most of them being hallucinated or supported by non-RS. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

There is another draft in their sandbox, that without proper referencing, looks close to, if not an attack page. Draft:Theodore Kosin (remove link if it isn't acceptable to post here) Knitsey (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I was about to G10 it before it was draftified by another editor. It might still be eligible. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The Walt accusations are referenced by a blog. The last reference gives me 404 but that might be because I'm in the UK? Knitsey (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah. That bit and more been deleted. Knitsey (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The last reference is hallucinated. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for checking CWL. Knitsey (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Dangerous offender

Would i be justified in deleting Dangerous_offender#Known_criminals_designated_as_dangerous_offenders since the section is unsourced? I feel it makes sense to bring up here since some of the subjects are still alive--Trade (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, that was an egregious violation of WP:BLPSOURCE. I went ahead and deleted it. Generalrelative (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

If the list was accurate, it shouldn't take much work find sources if anyone wants to reintroduce them (e.g., by checking their articles and/or doing an internet search on "firstname lastname" "dangerous offender", filling in the actual name). I took at look at the first two, and it was easy to find an RS; here's a citation for the first, and here's a citation for the second. I'll leave it to someone else to reintroduce them. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I found at least one case where the designation was supported by RS (Stanley James Tippett), but regardless, the first response when dealing with BLPs is to remove potentially contentious unsourced content, and only then to look for sources and consider re-adding. Generalrelative (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, though if their wiki articles are correct, three are no longer alive. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Socialist Party (Ireland)

Bringing this issue here because looking to get some clarity on WP:BLP, in particular the text here: The Socialist Party, along with other branches of ISA, formed the faction to Defend Safeguarding, Socialist Feminism and Internal Democracy (SSFID). This faction later disaffiliated from ISA due to allegations of abuse by ISA leadership.[11] The text is sourced primarily to two self-published press releases by the Trotskyist groups making the allegations of abuse having taken place[12][13], but the IP user adding this has since added further self-published articles from other Trotskyist groups.

I had been removing these claims on sight because as far as I've always understood our WP:BLP policy, and seen it used in practice, is that such a statement to make allegations of abuse having taking place by ISA's leadership (who would be living individuals) requires strong third-party reliable sources and that such contentious material around allegations of criminality must be removed immediately and without discussion (WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:BLPCRIME) and that self-published content must not be used if it's involving claims about a third party (WP:BLPSELFPUB). However an admin has now suggested that in fact this isn't a BLP breach, which is a stance that seems antithetical to the entire point of BLP from my point of view.

Would like to get some wider guidance and perspectives on the situation. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Links please. I can't see anything on Talk:Socialist Party (Ireland) that looks like a discussion on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Link to majority of discussion here, which also involved ChildrenWillListen.[14].

Relevant comments by Asilvering, which took place regarding a second article the same material was being introduced to:

"what is the BLP violation? Is it This faction later disaffiliated from ISA due to allegations of abuse made against ISA leadership.? That is a statement that can either be true or false, but it is in no way a BLP violation" [15]

"But if that is why the Socialist Party disaffiliated from the ISA, that's a perfectly valid use of self-published material. The statement in the article is "due to allegations of abuse made", not something like "because ISA covered up sexual misconduct""[16]

"A statement by the organization itself, describing why it left another organization, is a perfectly acceptable use of a self-published source. It is completely immaterial whether there was any actual abuse. The statement does not say whether there was or wasn't. It just says that's why the organization said they left."[17] Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPGROUP, how large a group are you talking about, and how personally identifiable are the members of this group? Asilvering is correct that WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF are is allowed, though this might be a borderline case of whether the ISA is a third party in relation to the faction: initially it wasn't, and now it is. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion I'd say it's clearly third-party as it's a constituent group/faction that was openly announcing their departure accusing the leadership of the wider International of covering up abuse, so there is inherently an allegation of criminality being made about a different body of people. The larger point though is that given there's no RS about there even being allegations, the only source we have to there being allegations are one-side of an obvious dispute.

As to WP:BLPGROUP, while it doesn't specifically identify people by name, the identifying of those in charge via "ISA Leadership" would no doubt make it easy to identify who they were accusing if you were to be involved in the organisation or that political trend. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

At the point that the faction left, the ISA was not a third party to the faction, as the faction was a subset of the ISA. Re: BLPGROUP, how large a group is the "ISA leadership"? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion But the statement wasn't issued while they were associated to the ISA, it was after the fact claiming why they had left. So it was past the point of being a constituent section (and even then there's a debate about the "third-party" line between national sections and an international body they subscribe to). As to the size of the group, the full articles cited leave it deliberately vague but refer to an "International Committee", so likely a handful of people in total. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

"We are leaving WASP and the International Socialist Alternative" is present tense, not past tense. I have no familiarity with this topic, and I'm not willing to invest a lot of time familiarizing myself with it, so it may be time for me to bow out of this conversation. It sounds like some subset of members from the South African section of the ISA (South African section = WASP) decided to break away from the WASP and the ISA due to what the breakaway group considered an inappropriate/inadequate response on the part of the ISA's leadership to alleged sexual abuse by one person in the leadership of an unspecified national section, out of what looks like 19 sections total. I don't see how one would identify the alleged perpetrator from the information on that page, and I'd say that the rest falls under BLPSELFPUB WP:ABOUTSELF, so I don't see a BLP violation here. I would change the text to something like "This faction later disaffiliated from the ISA due to what it considered an inadequate response by the ISA leadership to allegations of abuse by a member of the leadership of one of ISA's national sections." Or, you could say "This faction later disaffiliated from the ISA." FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion thinking about it, couldn't we simply cite snapshots of that sections page and say "at some point in 2024, several member sections of the ISA disaffiliated from the international"?

It would avoid all the issues around the allegations and sourcing there of, while still establishing that they were no longer affiliated with an appropriate ABOUTSELF source? Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion to the nature of the organization they do not disclose that information. Presumably leaders from all branches are considered leadership as it's a collective organization. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler Who is the admin who 'suggested that in fact this isn't a BLP breach'? I can't see anyone with admin status involved in this discussion (which should probably have been taking place on the article talk page, rather than on the IPs talk page, where nobody will know about it). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump the quotes are from Asilvering (who has admin status) and were regarding identical edits on a separate article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I'd misread your earlier post. Though if this involves multiple articles, we clearly need to discuss them all. And you should probably notify the other participants in this dispute that this discussion is taking place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

some thoughts. Firstly, 'abuse' need not necessarily imply a criminal offence. Having said that though, I can see merit in the argument that we shouldn't be citing involved sources for this. As is so often the case, we very likely won't see coverage of this in better sources. My immediate instinct is to agree with Rambling Rambler's proposition that this shouldn't be included in the article (or at least, we shouldn't include the 'abuse' bit), not so much because it may possibly involve WP:BLP concerns, but because it lacks independent sourcing at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump My issue in part here though is that the "abuse" outlined in what is cited looks to be an allegation of ISA leadership covering up sexual abuse (Their callous approach both towards the complainant in this case and all survivors of sexual abuse[18]), which is already being alluded to in the documented faction name of "defend safeguarding". Given the severity of the allegation, I don't think we can use these sources at all even if we were to surmise them without saying exactly what the allegation were. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

https://internationalsocialist.net/2024/04/isa-

(Primary source)

https://www.socialistparty.ie/2024/04/a-crisis-in-international-socialist-alternative-isa/

(Primary source as SP(I) WAS considered leadership in ISA)

https://socialistpartyscotland.org.uk/international-socialist-alternative-in-serious-crisis-the-political-roots-of-an-impending-split/

https://iclfi.org/pubs/wh/252/isa

(Secondary sources addressing the allegations) 188.65.190.67 (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Neither of those secondary sources are going to be considered acceptable. They're self-published websites of other Trotskyist groups making claims regarding the allegations so would certainly fail as third-parties.

The issue is there is a lack of reliable sources on this, i.e. a well-regarded established credible newspaper or news organisations such as RTE, The Independent etc. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

As to the other two, whether they fail BLP or not, they're both certainly involved in the issue and are not independent of the subject nor reliable publications and we tend to avoid those in almost all cases. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler That's your opinion. Stop presenting opinions as fact.

Rambling Rambler instigated an edit war on ROSA (organisation) which is an affiliate of Socialist Party by making the page a redirect to International Socialist Alternative which it is no longer even affiliated to.

The necessity of the inclusion of the context for Socialist Party disaffiliation stems from Rambling Ramblers actions in this regard.

@Asilvering locked ROSA for Rambling Ramblers actions. See ROSA under Asilvering.

Additionally Rambling Rambler engaged in threats by sending me misleading messages on my talk page accusing me of vandalism. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

IP, I strongly suggest that you focus on content, not contributors. The behaviour has been addressed; you can now let it go. If you continue to be accused of vandalism, I will block for personal attacks. But the same goes for you, if you continue to hound RR over this. Please work together with each other to write the encyclopedia. -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Understood. I felt the need to highlight their actions as they are relevant to their conduct here. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@guliolopez

@ChildrenWillListen

@CeltBrowne

@Liz

@FactOrOpinion

@RamblingRambler

@188.65.190.67

@AndyTheGrump

see == Edit warring on Socialist Party (Ireland) and related pages ==

Please see my talk page from August 2025 through August 2025 for more context on this discussion.

Tagging other users involved in discussion on other talk pages or edits.

188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC) 188.65.190.67 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This is not a forum for user conduct-related matters. Take it to WP:ANI if you want to discuss conduct. JFHJr (㊟) 20:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Stop presenting opinions as fact.

It's a noticeboard for discussions, that's exactly the purpose for this noticeboard which is to give views on the suitability of material in regards to BLP policy of which people have different interpretations of it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler, could you please use {{tq}} or some similar template when quoting other editors? It's quite hard to follow all the italics. -- asilvering (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Coldplay jumbotron controversy

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.

---

Shortly after Andy Byron was deleted at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Byron) a new article was created entitled Coldplay jumbotron controversy covering essentially the same topic. I have similar BLP concerns to the previous article, so I would appreciate BLPN regulars having a look at the article, and possibly redirecting/PRODding/AFDing it as necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing quite like recreating a deleted article complete with obvious WP:BLP violation in the lede, is there? (I've removed it, but it is in the history.) Anyway, clearly needs deletion as the vacuous tabloid gossip nonsense it clearly is, same as last time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Now at AfD:, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coldplay jumbotron controversy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 3 August 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.

List of Democratic Socialists of America public officeholders

I've been worried the list of DSA officeholders is violating our BLP policy. Currently the list includes not just DSA public officeholders like the list title describes, but any officeholder endorsed by any local DSA branch anywhere in the country. Some of the sourcing is fine, but it contains a lot of self sourcing and subpar sourcing to label folks as members of the org without requiring the person to be a member of the org and only requiring a local endorsement by a DSA chapter for inclusion. Do other editors think there are BLP issues here? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like this issue has been discussed on the talk page before, Endorsement ≠ Membership, and some of these people are being added because of the very loose inclusion criteria; "national endorsees, local endorsees", seen in the last para in the lead. I agree with this comment made in that talk page discussion - Unless a reliable source states the elected official or candidate is a member of the DSA, then that particular person should not be identified as being a member. If you believe content is unsourced or poorly sourced, then you can remove it per BLP, without waiting for further discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I've attempted to remove one listing (Mauree Turner) at least four times ( 1, 2, 3, 4) and have been reverted each time by other users and discussion attempts on the talk page went unanswered. Other users have attempted to fix BLP problems in the article as well and been reverted, which is why I wanted to raise it here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps SocDoneLeft (who reverted you repeatedly) can explain themselves better here? Because yeah, a list that claims candidates endorsed by the DSA are in fact DSA officeholders is blatantly erroneous structure for a list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That entry includes a quote from Mauree Turner (WP:SELF) telling people to join DSA, in direct reply to her endorsement by DSA. IE: Turner accepts the endorsement:

• @okcDSA (2022-06-28). "Voting has closed and our chapter has voted resoundingly to endorse @MaureeTurnerOK for re-election for House District 88! Mauree is/will be on the Dem Primary ballot, and if they prevail, will face a challenger in the general election this November!" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
• @MaureeTurnerOK (28 June 2022). "A lot of folks ask where to plug in, and I will always tell you to figure out what pulls at your heartstrings and start there. There are so many organizations to get involved with, if you're looking to get involved with the DSA drop a line!" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

SocDoneLeft (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

While that technically doesn't prove she's a member, it does sort of make me wonder if strict evidence of membership is too high a bar. The DSA isn't like the Democratic Party. Nobody will ever have a (DSA) next to their name on the ballot, and it's not a legislative caucus either, which means the "canonical" proof of membership is private until someone wants to reveal it.

Maybe what we should actually do is rename the list to "List of politicians associated with the Democratic Socialists of America" and then have a subsection of that list for confirmed members, and another section for endorsees. Loki (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the current title is fine, but the tables should be expanded to note whether references support endorsement, membership, or both. (I've tried to add these for federal endorsements, where more refs are available.)

Also, to clear up some confusion: DSA chapters vote on endorsement, which (since 2016) almost always first requires a questionnaire submitted by the candidate requesting said endorsement. There are some exceptions (like Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, though he's long been close to DSA), but since Bernie 2016 it's very uncommon for a candidate to get a DSA endorsement who doesn't want it. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I support removal of anyone in that article that doesn't have a reliable source explicitly stating they are a member of the DSA. Simply being endorsed by the DSA doesn't qualify them to be on the list. At one time, the inclusion criteria was members of the Democratic Socialists of America, and the criteria has now been manipulated to include endorsees, so either the title should be changed to reflect the actual inclusion criteria, or the endorsees should be removed, because they are not really members of the DSA.

For instance, looking at Mauree Turners profile page, it doesn't even mention the DSA, and this in depth article from The Washington Post about them, doesn't mention the DSA either, and that tweet from them does not say they are a member of the DSA, so they along with the other non-members should be removed from the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree that officeholders should only be on the list if there is a reliable source identifying them as a member of the DSA. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sydney Sweeney § political party

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sydney Sweeney § political party. It would be helpful if someone could come chime in with whether or not it's safe, from a BLP-standpoint, to report whether a BLP subject is affiliated with a specific political party solely based on their voter registration records as reported by WP:RS. My gut says, at best, we can mention in Wiki-voice that reliable sources confirmed she was registered for a specific party, but we cannot say she is, especially as she has not publicly stated one way or the other what her stance is. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Seems like the article has been fully protected for a week.[19] There's now an RfC on the article's talk page: Talk:Sydney Sweeney#RfC: Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation. Some1 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Caesar DePaço has been edited per court-order/WP:OA

This article is currently getting a bit of attention:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar DePaço
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Office_action:_Removals_on_the_article_Caesar_DePaço

It never hurts if articles like this are as good as possible per WP:BLP, WP:PROPORTION etc. So, if you feel like improving it, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Koushik Kar

Report about line no. 8 of the article Koushik Kar referenced below under quotation-

'In March 2021, after joining the Bharatiya Janata Party, Kar was removed from the cast of a play about the 2015 Dadri lynching.[6][7]'

1. The play name is not specifically mentioned in the above piece of information, which creates it a contentious material.

2.poor quality source cited to establish link between 2015 dadri lynching and the play from which subject was removed.

3. The context of the information is not nutral, wrt biographical article about a living subject.

The play from which the subject was removed has no connection with 2015 dadri lynching incident - is based on Late utpal dutt's age old drama "Ghum Nei" written way in the 1970s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujjwalbag (talk • contribs) 18:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Big Brother 26 voting table dispute

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.

---

There is an on going dispute about changing the voting table on the Big Brother 26 page particularly regarding the HoH during week four. Angela Murray won Head of Household that week and Quinn Martin a DeepFake Head of Household power. This topic has been voted and debated before in the past. I'm not sure why we are bringing this up again. It was clearly voted on back in August 2024. We are going to bring another full discussion until the matter is resolved. I suggest we protect the Big Brother 26 page from further vandalism. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 18:18, 5 August 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.

Liu Haocun

Could do with more eyes on this one. There's an age controversy and a couple of sources have been used for the DoB, IMDB and a source called iNews, URL starts inf.news. The latter source has also been used to reference the age controversy. I asked about iNews on RSN and editors there said it isn't an RS, so I removed both DoBs and both sources. Posted on the article's Talk page about it. Another editor has reverted my changes to the article a couple of times, and says on the talk page that they have a reliable source, Douban. This doesn't look like an RS to me, but I don't have expertise in Chinese sources and don't want to edit war, so if anyone else can have a look, that would be great. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Lola Kirke's nationality

Hi, a consensus is needed on how to format Lola Kirke's nationality in the lead sentence. Could you guys please comment at Talk:Lola Kirke#Nationality in lead? Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Alice Crary

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

Seeking input on how to deal with a pattern of self-promotional & CoI edits to Alice Crary, beginning with the article creator. Despite trimming back, the article continues to re-grow resumé-like appendages with occasional non-NPOV puffery. I tagged the article to call attention to these issues in Feb 2025. Most recently, a self-declared associate of the article's subject posted to the talk page, requesting an 'impartial' editor to fix the article and remove the tags. Within 2 hours, 6,023 bytes of new resumé-like content was added, much of it literally copy-pasted from the subject's online resumé. I wanted to flag here for visibility and input before attempting a major clean-up. — Goffman82 (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Joss Sackler

This article has been brought up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joss Sackler) with the nomination statement expressing a concern that material in the article is defamatory. The !votes so far have been uniformly keep, but the nominator's concerns may have some validity (the article probably contains too much description of oxycontin, Purdue Pharma, and the opioid epidemic); both the article and AFD could probably benefit from attention from editors familiar with BLP policy. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I scraped out a few problematic things (claims not matching reference, for example), but the biggest problem is that this is one of weight; as an example, her fashion line isn't even named in this article. I encourage others to take a hand in this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)