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.

Trial of Jeffrey Donaldson

Trial of Jeffrey Donaldson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is a minute by minute account of an ongoing criminal case involving a living person really appropriate? Obviously in the adversarial system we're hearing the prosecution's case first (with some cross-examination), which tends to make the coverage somewhat biased against the living person concerned. FDW777 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A 'minute by minute account' of a trial would be inappropriate regardless of the legal system involved, but clearly the imbalance you note is an additional problem. Having said that, actually enforcing WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS in relation to subjects like these is almost impossible. You could try removing and/or summarising some of the bloat, but getting it to stick is likely to be problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

jury have been sworn in and charged by the judge NOT to do any research online & ONLY rely on what they have heard in the court room, all facts are backed up by a several online news articles that have been cleared by the news outlets legal teams, therefore i cannot see how the article could affect the trial .... as per triming the article you would run the risk of making it biased by excluding certain points in my opinion & better off detailing the majority of what is a complex case WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

BTW there is also a daily podcast by the BBC about the trial that reports even more details about the trial thats left out of the newspapers, which again has been cleared by legal teams & has zero effect on proceedings obviously... and according to the latest episode the defence get their turn next week WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

"i cannot see how the article could affect the trial". That's not the only argument for not having this material. In fact, it's not even the argument that either FDW777 or AndyTheGrump made. Morwen (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

i don't get the point u are trying to make ? WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, not affecting the trial doesn't equate to not presenting potentially biased content to general readers, and secondly you haven't really addressed the issue of excessive detailing of everything that is reported. Again, Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarise secondary sources, not replicate them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

the defence is starting next week so that will balance it out, i suggest the article is trimmed down after the Verdict is delivered, as we will have a better idea of what was relevant & what can be removed WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

References

I remember that we had regular updates to HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan while the trial was ongoing, but we managed to achieve this without hitting major pitfalls. PatGallacher (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

was that as detailed? what I have seen of this is barely less detailed than if we had a court reporter there. Morwen (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Morwen verdict is expected shortly, we could then cull what is deemed irrelevant, although i would submit that as much detail to explain what went on should be retained & since vast majority of evidence in the weeks long trial was spoken testimony that was then cross examined its fair to say it was complex and deserves proper recording WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

jeffrey donaldson found guilty as charged on all 18 counts, Defence Submissions already short as best his lawyer could come up with was the shaggy defence, however the cross examination of the 2 Complainants were a master class in victim blaming & gaslighting so be careful whats culled WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson

Pretty obvious this article is a hit job on a living person simply because people disagree with her conservative politics. There is *no source* provided for describing her as "far-right" in the first sentence, something she and her party would fiercely dispute. She literally said today she opposes far-right white nationalism in Australia. ~2026-34930-17 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The first two sources in the article describe her as "far-right"... GiantSnowman 16:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Are those rather obscure sources sufficient for such a negative label? The third source describes her as "right-wing populist". I'm curious as to why articles on other Australian politicians don't use negative labels in the first sentence. For example, Mehreen Faruqi or Larissa Waters aren't described as "far-left". ~2026-34930-17 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Who says they are 'obscure'? How about this and this then? GiantSnowman 16:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Lol the first SBS source you give literally says "Hanson and One Nation are often described by academics and political analysts as right-wing populists". 🤦 ~2026-34930-17 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

In an article titled How Australia's far-right gained mainstream attention in 2025 (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 19:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The information is supported by the article, and many others, c'mon now. GiantSnowman 08:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The two articles cited for her being far-right don't call her far-right. If other articles do they should be cited for the contentious label. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

From Discursive Approaches to Populism Across Disciplines (page 339):

Hanson never relinquished her mantle as the Australian far-right’s spiritual leader

From Debasing Political Rhetoric (page 107):

"The purpose of this chapter is to critically explore the use of debasing and ridiculing discourse by Australia’s most prominent far-right populist politician, Pauline Hanson."

In those two books she is clearly and unambiguously called "far-right". TarnishedPath^talk 12:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The second article explicitly refers to Hanson as "a far-right senator". Additionally, there are already multiple sources on the Pauline Hanson page which call her far right. Brightpaw (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very odd stance for SFR to take here... GiantSnowman 12:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course Hanson is going to say she's not far-right. She's trying to position herself as speaking for the masses. Reliable sources call her far-right.. TarnishedPath^talk 23:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hanson is Australia's most prominent far right figure and has been for decades. The number of high quality scholarly sources describing her as such is numerous . Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Are we genuinely having a discussion as to whether the leader of Australia's far-right One Nation party is far-right themselves? You've got to love Wikipedia sometimes. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

It is definitely against policy to descibe her as far-right in the very first sentence in the lead section.

Per MOS:FIRSTBIO:

"The first sentence should usually state [...] noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms."

Meaning if there is no consensus among RSes regarding the descriptor, the political position must not be included in the first sentence. Further down, the lead itself proves that this is the case:

"Since 1996, Hanson has been widely characterised as radical right, far right and right-wing populist."

Based on this, right-wing may be policy-compliant in the first sentence (as it encompasses all three), but far-right is definitely not. ~2026-34832-60 (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Except that "radical right" is an Americanism for "far-right", and most "right-wing populist" parties are far-right as well. And being far-right is a "noteworthy position" of hers, so it meets policy as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if everything you state in this comment were to be true, the three are still three distinct entities. The "avoiding subjective or contentious terms" part applies to the "noteworthy position" as well. Far-right is definitely a contentious (some could even posit dangerous) term, and the sourcing is simply not unambiguous enough to satisfy MOS:FIRSTBIO for including it in the first sentence of the lead. ~2026-35012-53 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity. We have more than sufficient sources (including the academic ones per Google Scholar ) to accurately describe Hanson's politics. And cut out the 'dangerous' scare-mongering nonsense. Politicians all across the political spectrum have been subjected to violence, in none of them has the wording of a Wikipedia article been shown to be a factor, and we don't censor articles because some lunatic might read them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

This has twice as many results. Hanson's politics are already accurately described in a policy-compliant manner: further down the lead, attributed.

(The difference is that violence against members of the rest of the political spectrum is not swept under the rug, normalised, rationalised, DARVOed or even outright celebrated by academia, mainstream media and the establishment at large - i.e. the current positions of the Cathedral are: 1. punching nazis is great actually and 2. everyone to the right of me is a nazi. You can synthesise the rest. NOTFORUM over.) ~2026-35012-53 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Go peddle your facile conspiracy theories somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, observing objective reality is not conspiracy theory peddling. Knock off the bothsidesism and the personal attacks, please. ~2026-35016-51 (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

A lot of the sources on that Google Scholar search you've linked still call Hanson far-right, including the very first result (Sengul 2022 describes Hanson as "populist radical right").

I don't know why you keep bringing American political talking points into this since this is a discussion about an Australian politician. The majority of sources for the last 30 years make it clear that Hanson is considered far-right in Australia. Brightpaw (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It should also be noted that 'far right' is a subset of 'right wing'. A statement that someone is right wing is self-evidently not a statement that they aren't on the 'far' side of the right-wing spectrum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

^this 100%. The term "right-wing" is an umbrella term inclusive of everything from slightly right of centre through to the far-right. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Correct. But is not a statement in support of it either, which would be the only thing relevant here. ~2026-35016-51 (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I've seen quite a few people arguing that the broader term trumps the more specific term on Talk pages for far-right UK politicians and parties. It is always with descriptions like "right wing" (broad) and "far-right" (specific) so it is not a general pattern of linguistic misunderstanding, just these specific terms. It is deployed in pursuit of an excuse to exclude a fact that it is embarrassing or impolitic to acknowledge from the proponent's POV, i.e. that the far-right person or party is far-right. I'm not sure that it is always raised in intentional bad faith but when people persist with it after its invalidity has been explained to them then that's probably a fair indicator of bad faith or at least of a POV that is clouding their objectivity. The funny thing is that a lot of the time the subjects are not embarrassed by the description "far-right". If anything, they would be offended if we called them anything as wet as merely "right wing". --DanielRigal (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Concur entirely. This is happening a lot lately, across Wikipedia political articles including those of parties, publications and politicians. The analogous situation would be to demand we cannot call orcas dolphins because they are whales. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Or that we cannot call a table saw a power tool because it is a tool. Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I see quite the opposite: motivated reasoning, wilful misinterpretation of policy, motte-and-baileys up the wazoo, stealth editing followed by status quo stonewalling, endless bludgeoning, reversing the burden of proof and asking for implausible standards of evidence, all just to shoehorn "far-right" into every imaginable right-leaning BLP. (Much of it these this very discussion.)

Minimal pushback to at least attempt to keep up the charade that the (already very skewed) policies on enwiki are semi-uniformly applied (I have not seen a single BLP with "far-left" in its first sentence, precious few in the lead; but "far-right" is somehow always defaulted to) is met with gaslighting, unfalsifiable accusations and close-to-immediate, unanimous indefs at AN:I.

I sometimes wonder if it has always been like this. ~2026-36157-16 (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:FIRSTBIO very much applies here, but not at all how you state it does. I have yet to see any signficant viewpoints presented from reliable secondary sourcing which states that she "is not far-right". Some sourcing stating that she is extreme-right, or right-populist or right-wing do not contradict an ascription of far-right. Indeed one of the sources I provided above called her far-right and populist at the same time. Hanson's far-right positioning is one of the most identifying things about her, therefore I'd think that MOS:FIRSTBIO very much would have us include the ascription in the first sentence. TarnishedPath^talk 01:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

If a source does not call her is far-right, that is a source in the "does not support" column. No source lists everything that the subject is not, that is an impossible standard of evidence.

I maintain my position. "Right-wing" is more accurate in this instance. ~2026-35016-51 (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect. There are many sources which will say nothing of her political position. That does not contradict those that do.

You quoted MOS:FIRSTBIO to support your position on the basis that you claim it is a "subjective or contentious terms". Following the link from FIRSTBIO which is on the word "contentious" we are taken to MOS:LABEL which states that we should avoid using value-laden labels "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". It is clearly the case that the term "far-right" is used widely by reliable sources. You not likeing it doesn't change it. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I have demonstrated that the number of scholarly sources calling her "right-wing" is double that of those calling her "far-right".

Even if we (generously) assume that every single one of the sources supporting "far-right" is also included in the "right-wing" batch, that is still one to one. The ambiguity and lack of consensus is handily demonstrated, so I feel no need to re-state this point any further.

MOS:LABEL is more general, and does not override the more specific MOS:FIRSTBIO. Please see this RFC for precedent for this interpretation.

Would you kindly explain why you chose to omit the "in which case use in-text attribution" part from the sentence you quoted from MOS:LABEL? ~2026-35203-15 (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Because I don't even accept your argument that it's a contentious opinion. You've not provided any quotes from any signficant viewpoints expressed in reliable secondary sourcing which states that she "is not far-right". RS widely state that she is "far-right" and this is not contested by anything I've seen in mainstream coverage of her. TarnishedPath^talk 07:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking "contentious" with WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED. The label would remain contentious even if the sourcing was unanimous. None of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Mao's articles contain their respective labels in the first sentence of the lead, and BLP does not even apply to their articles. ~2026-36157-16 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The label would remain contentious even if the sourcing was unanimous.

No, something being contentious doesn't mean that you personally disagree with it, it means that there is serious contention about the matter in the source material. In this case there is not. TarnishedPath^talk 00:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've commented in the discussion on her talkpage but I don't see how it's appropriate for the first sentence to be worded this way. This appears to be unusual for politicians from the hard-right globally and for Australian politicians generally. AusLondonder (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

What other articles do is not entirely pertinent (See WP:OTHERCONTENT). Per MOS:FIRSTBIO, each subject should be evaluated independently on the basis of their notability to determine what goes into the first sentence/para. TarnishedPath^talk 09:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately I would prefer far-right be removed as it is not neutral for the following reasons.

I agree with your sentiment, the term is not neutral. If other articles have removed "far-right" from the prose then the article for Hanson should too. @GiantSnowman argues that the first two sources use "far-right" in their title but not all of the sources used in this article are unanimous in that description, in fact I think it is the minority of sources that use this description so it's not giving equal weight to all sources as called for by WP:NPOV. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

not all of the sources used in this article are unanimous in that description

This has been addressed above. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M: I agree that for this subject to be treated differently to other political leaders is problematic and brings into question our adherence to the NPOV policy. Discussion of whether the subject is far-right may belong in the article but it certainly doesn't belong in the first sentence is such an obviously negative way. It unquestionably violates MOS:FIRSTBIO: "The first sentence should usually state [...] noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." It's also simply unnecessary. She's a politician, that is all we need to say in the first sentence - we don't need any ideological labels. AusLondonder (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It unquestionably violates MOS:FIRSTBIO

I've yet to see anyone provide quotes from signficant viewpoints expressed in reliable secondary sourcing which states that she "is not far-right". So as far as I see it's not been demonstrated that the term is either subjective or contentious. TarnishedPath^talk 00:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is a BLP issue, however as I said on the article talkpage I think an ad hoc decision to label Hanson as "far right" in the first sentence is highly unwise. The issue is not whether this label is sourced, the issue is that no other articles on major Australian politicians use ideological labels in the first sentence. Having Hanson labelled as "far-right" while reverting similar labels on left-wing figures is going to lead to persistent edit-warring and an assumption of bias from readers. As I suggested on the talkpage, this should be raised at WT:AUSPOL to come up with a universal standard, not dealt with on an individual basis. My view is that ideological labels are almost always contentious and better dealt with in prose further down in the article, where different assessments can be given due weight. I T B F 📢 11:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In addition to no other articles on major Australian politicians using these labels, these sorts of labels are not applied to international politicians' articles either, like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, even though what they have been doing is blatantly right-wing, Trump's political ideology is left to a dedicated article rather than stating them in the lead. The article for Rupert Lowe previously said that he is a far-right politician but that was removed following a WP:BRD reversion though there is not discussion so the essay was not fully followed. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

this should be raised at WT:AUSPOL to come up with a universal standard, not dealt with on an individual basis.

Any discussion at WT:AUSPOL could only result in WP:LOCALCON and would not be binding on pages about Australian politicans unless it was advertised at the various central discussion forums (WP:VPP, etc). That aside, I see absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be considered on a case by case basis. Not all subjects have precisely the same reason for being notable, which is what we are concenred with when it comes to what goes into the first sentence. TarnishedPath^talk 00:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I think this will need to be resolved with a RfC so we can have wider input and not simply a handful of editors imposing a local consensus themselves to treat Hanson differently than all other Australian politicians and other comparable politicians around the world and violate MOS:FIRSTBIO on the biography of a living person. AusLondonder (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If we are going to create an RfC we will need to formulate a clear idea of what exact wording we should present and what options should be presented to commenters, in terms of options I prefer two choices that see a retention of this wording or consensus formed against this wording. An RfC would be very good because there will be a site-wide opinion rather than a handful of editors discussing this proposal. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no issue with an RFC. I think if we do it needs to be done on the Hanson article's talk page itself and I prefer a binary yes/no question when it comes to RFCs, as I think they are the most likely to lead to an unambiguous consensus one way or the other. Something like:

Should Hanson be described as far-right in the first sentence of the lead?

If this needs workshopping though, I suggest the Hanson talk page is the best place to do so, because this isn't a BLP issue. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you that reliable sources call Hanson far-right and have consistently opposed "far right is a pejorative label that should not be used if some sources say right-wing" argument but it is, narrowly, a BLP issue as Hanson is a BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• MOS:LABEL doesn’t give carte blanche for us to use contentious labels whenever they may be widely used among reliable sources. For example, if a contentious label also happens to be vague: “Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies.” Terms like “far-left” and “far-right” are not just extremely vague, they are also favored terms for marginalizing or “otherizing” political opponents. Instead of saying “far-left” for example, say the person favors universal basic income and reparations to minority groups, whatever particular views seem far-left. Same goes for far-right. This goes double if the BLP subject does not self-identify as far-left or far-right. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  What the subject identifies as is not very relevant. What independent, reliable, secondary sourcing identify the subject as is a lot more relevant. Particular given no one is yet to provide quotes from such sources which states that the subject "is not far-right". TarnishedPath^talk 07:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

User:TarnishedPath, this took only a few minutes to find, for the Keiko Fujimori BLP which has the same issue, I'm pretty sure I could do the same for Hanson....

• News Two Months Ago:
  

Briceno, Franklin. "Keiko Fujimori likely to win 1st round of Peru election", Associated Press (10 Apr 2016), via New Jersey Herald: "Center-right candidate Keiko Fujimori was likely to end up with about 39 percent of the votes, said a quick count carried out by local pollster Ipsos representing 85 percent of polling stations nationwide."

• News Ten Years Ago:
  

"Peru leftist Mendoza edges up in pre-election poll", Reuters (7 Apr 2016): "Center-right Keiko Fujimori maintains a wide lead with 43 percent of valid votes...."

• News Fifteen Years Ago:
  

Kozak, Robert. "Peru Election Alarms Investors", Wall Street Journal (12 Apr 2011): "No sooner were the leftist Ollanta Humala and center-right Keiko Fujimori confirmed Monday as rivals in the June presidential runoff election".

• Scholarly:

Tartakoff, Laura. "Ethnic Identity and Gender in Pluralist Perú", Soc (2016) 53:67–75: "Humala moderated his nationalist socialist platform upon facing a runoff against center-right Keiko Fujimori."

Instead of saying far-left or far-right (which are both pejorative and subjective and vague), it's much more effective to be more specific. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Very nice, but we're not discussing Keiko Fujimor (whoever they are) and I hightly doubt you'd find anything for Hason which is from reputable sources calling her "centre-right". From what I've seen it is all right-wing, populist, far-right and mixtures thereof. TarnishedPath^talk 01:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Candace Owens

Editor Andre stated on the article talk page that Candace Owens "is antisemitic, full stop" . This is a characterization of a living person's beliefs/character stated as Wikipedia fact, not attributed to sources. Per WP:BLP and WP:LABEL, value-laden labels about living persons require attribution rather than direct assertion. Requesting review of this BLP violation.Chicabonita661 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It was on your talk page, to be precise. But even so, this is a gross BLP vio. ~2026-35092-91 (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Chicabonita, there are many reliable sources that call Candace Owens antisemitic, and quite a few are present as references in the article. Here is a detailed source. It is not necessary for an editor to cite a source on your talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Cullen328, the existence of sources is not in dispute. The issue is that Andre stated in Wikipedia's voice that Owens "is antisemitic, full stop" rather than attributing the characterization to sources (e.g., "sources have described Owens as antisemitic"). WP:BLP and WP:LABEL require attribution for such labels, even on talk pages. The presence of sources does not justify stating a living person's character as unqualified fact. Chicabonita661 (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE is for article space, not talk pages. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• BLP does not actually require what you're saying. The part that describes how it applies to talk pages is WP:BLPTALK, and it is actually much more narrow than people usually think: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Editors have a huge amount of leeway to post potentially objectionable things on talk as long as it's related to content decisions, including things that we could never put in an article directly as they stand. The reason for this is obvious - if editors were not permitted to even discuss something shocking or exceptional, we wouldn't be able to determine whether it should go in the article in some form; you're permitted to say "I think the truth is XYZ" at the start of a discussion to give your general perception of the sources as they stand, and then hash it out from there to determine what sources actually exist, what they actually support, what degree of attribution is necessary and how much, etc. This does have several caveats - it has to be something that credibly relates to article content; if it's wildly off-base or outside the bounds of anything the sources could reasonably be expected to support (or if an editor keeps hammering it to the point where it's clear that their real concern isn't content choices; or if the content has been settled and one editor is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK while posting such material) then it stops being reasonable. But in this case it's clearly close enough to coverage to fall under the BLPTALK exception for article choices, and in general the wording of BLPTALK is clearly intended to avoid a situation where discussion controversial things like this becomes a minefield. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Keiko Fujimori

A few extra eyes would be helpful at Talk:Keiko Fujimori on how to handle the result of the Peruvian presidential election. A number of reliable sources (including the London Times, Wall Street Journal, and Americas Quarterly) have declared Fujimori the winner. Other reliable sources have simply reported that she is ahead in the count, but no reliable source contradicts that she is the winner. How should this be addressed in the article when she is the apparent winner but the election authority has not officially declared it? Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the article. No newspaper projection is a replacement for an official election results. It's absolutely due to include that publications have projected she will win but we should not call her the winner in wikivoice until she wins per WP:TOOSOON. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

"Presumptive" winner would be okay. "[T]he official count of the National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE) exceeded 99% of the votes counted and extended Keiko Fujimori's lead over Roberto Sánchez to more than 32,000 votes...." Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I still think we should not be acting like a news service. WP:TOOSOON applies as does WP:CRYSTAL. I understand some opposition groups have asserted irregularities in the election. While I concur it seems most likely Fujimori will be the next president of Peru I think it serves no encyclopedic purpose to jump the gun. If we wait we have a 100% chance of getting it right. If we don't we have a small chance of getting egg on our faces. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This article remains a significant BLP problem because of WP:TOOSOON edits. We still have no sources saying that she's president elect - that's different from the presumptive winner and entirely unsourced. More eyes needed to keep this article in line with BLP and WP:CRYSTAL. Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Tricia Helfer

On Tricia Helfer, DestructionCoach (talk · contribs) wants to include this content. A variety of marginally reliable and unreliable sources are cited; none of them use the term "pornography" or "pornographer" and some of the content is entirely unsourced. Jfire (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I can cite her own words from her own page if I must, I feel as though doing that would make the article look unprofessional, crass, and as though it is directly promoting her services.

The term "pornography" is search engine optimisation poison and so the articles describe it euphemistically. What they do describe clearly falls under the definition of pornography, and someone who produces pornography professionally can correctly be called a pornographer.

The article likewise could be edited to avoid the word "pornography", instead calling it "adult content" or what have you, but in my view that kind of euphemistic dancing around an issue would go against the idea of using a neutral voice. DestructionCoach (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally, we follow how reliable secondary sources describe people, not what they terms they use for themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The page was on my watchlist and I just removed most of that content, much of which either failed verification (the pornography claims) or was undue (most of the rest). I also removed some less reliable sources. NicheSports (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In one of the sources your removed, what she is making is explicitly called "adult content", which is another name for pornography.

This is the definition of pornography that I am using: "Sexually suggestive material, such as a picture, video, text, or audio, intended for sexual arousal." By this definition, what she is making is pornography. This is not original reaserch, as the fact that the content is of this description can be gleamed from the articles, including her own words in the people interview, even if they do not use the word "pornography" for search engine optimisation reasons.

I understand that I didn't provide a source for some of the claims, I will cite her own words from her onlyfans page to clarify. I feel as though a short description of the content should be there for clarity. I'm not married to the terminology I used, but I do feel that the article should in some way mention the fact that the content she produces is explicitly made for arousing her audience (aka, pornographic).

I strongly disagree with your classification of her onlyfans as "modeling", this isn't clear from the articles on the subject sadly, but on her page it does say that she offers among other things, private audio calls, as well as selling videos that she produces. Those would fall heavly outside of modeling, especially the audio. In my opinion these should be in their own section, you could concievably try to split these between modeling and acting, but that would just not be very readable.

I plan on reversing your edit as it deleted way too much in my view, though I welcome changes overall, I do not think this change in her career should be reduced to a small footnote in a separate category, especially in the category of modeling, seeing how we're describing her as a "former model". DestructionCoach (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In one of the sources your removed, what she is making is explicitly called "adult content", which is another name for pornography According to you, not the unreliable source, nor any other source you provided. If you restore inaccurate and contentious content back to a WP:BLP, against the concerns of multiple editors, this is going to a noticeboard NicheSports (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand that an instagram page for a pop culture podcast is not considered a reliable source, but it does in fact call it "adult content". Quote: "Do you agree that A-list women taking full control of their own adult content is the ultimate power move?" - in reference to what they just described, her onlyfans page. Other, more reliable, sources allude to this, though their wording is vague for search engine optimisation reasons.

I'm partial to having the article describe this euphemistically or using different language in general, but I think it should be clear that what she is making is content that isn't merely images that is designed to sexually arouse the audience first and foremost.

The article, as it stands right now, could honestly be read by someone as though she opened an account on the platfrom and that's it, it does not describe the content that she produces at all. DestructionCoach (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi DestructionCoach, you have already been reverted 5 times on that article, by three editors. Additional editors here have expressed concern about the content that you are adding to the article. I recognize you are newer here but you are repeatedly trying to restore contentious content, against something that looks like consensus, to a WP:BLP, where there is a low tolerance for such content/edits. Can you please try to get consensus for any similar changes to the article on its talk page? It is likely that any direct edits you make to the article that are even broadly similar to what you have added to date will be reverted and risk you being brought to WP:ANEW for edit warring NicheSports (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the first reversion was done purely due to the source I used, which was my bad, and the sources I added were deemed acceptable. I wouldn't count that as part of the discussion.

The other two revisions are, in my opinion, unjustified, as they completely or almost completely strip my contribution of substince just because the exact words I used were not in the sources (this is because for search optimisation reasons, few publications will use the word "pornography").

I welcome any and all suggestions and edits that change the wording to something that will be more up to everyone's liking, I don't claim to be a wordsmith. My contension is that completely avoiding the subject matter and the fact that she is making explicitly adult-oriented content by putting it under the "modeling" section and removing all mentions of pornography is not accurate and actively distorts the truth. I've refrained from reversing the edits for the time being, as you can see, but I don't think the conversation should just stop at that.

I maintain that everything I've said is 100% accurate and can be backed up with sources, though some of it would require linking to Helfer's own posts. DestructionCoach (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, WP:3RR applies even if the reverts are to completely different parts of the article. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In the interview she compares it to being photographed for Playboy and the article on that doesn't call it pornography in wikivoice so that very much doesn't seem due.

I also don't think that starting an OnlyFans this year, when one of the references used refers to her by the name of a character she played in the 2000s, is enough due weight to put anything in the first sentence. Sesquilinear (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This is understandable, though I doubt many articles will be written about this in the future, and checking if her onlyfans is still active or a dead project would constitute original research. The reason I put "pornographer" in the opening of her article was because, in my view, her pornography career should be displayed separately from modeling and acting, as it does not quite fit either (since she makes pornography across many media formats, like audio, video and photographs). How long do you suggest we should wait before editing the first sentence?

Again, I could link her own words on her onlyfans page as a source, would that be satisfactory? DestructionCoach (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I doubt many articles will be written about this in the future is honestly an argument that she's unlikely to be better known (in reliable sources) for her OnlyFans work than for Battlestar Galactica. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I have pblocked DestructionCoach from Tricia Helfer. Edit warring to restore WP:OR about controversial material very obviously breaches WP:BLP. Judges might know what pornography is when they see it, but we don't get to be so opinionated as Wikipedia editors. Fences&Windows 20:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Tim Luckhurst

• Tim Luckhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has a rather long controversies section for an academic Tim_Luckhurst#Controversies. I'm not really sure much of it is due weight (at least as a "controversies" section), and quite a bit of it appears to be sourced to a student newspaper of the university where the subject works. The article over the years seems to have been subject to both promotional COI editing by various accounts, as well as editing by SPAs who have an axe to grind against Luckhurst, without much input from regular Wikipedia editors. An account, who apparently identifies as the subject, LithiumNerd7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly attempted to remove the section, and earlier this year made a request on their talkpage for the page to be deleted. The student newspaper in question has recently written a piece regarding the editing of the page . Some additional eyes and cleanup to comply with BLP would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems to have largely been dealt with. Many thanks to those who worked to clean up the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Bookend63: would you like to explain why you restored material that had been explicitly removed under BLP? . Can people keep an eye on this article to make sure it follows BLP? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

First, the material is factually accurate. Second, it has been longstanding. Third, it is properly sourced. (Note that the Palatinate is the University's newspaper of record. It's editorial must meet legal standards. Luckhurst was given the opportunity to comment on the article prior to publication. He decided to decline the opportunity to excerise free speech.) Fourth, BLP is clear Wiki pages should not be altered purely on grounds content might be controversial. It's a reminder to consider factual accuracy carefully. Fifth, multiple editors have written or reinstated the "Barley" and "Palatinate" sections. Sixth, the talk and edits

history shows concern the page has been repeatedly santised on spurious grounds. As you know, these have included unjustifiable deletion of an entire "Controversies" section. It has also been renamed "Media", which is a vague heading. "Media Controversies" is equitable. Seventh, and finally, additional editorial oversight is valuable. However, it is important to recognise the page should be balanced and Wiki guidance not be misinterpreted. BLP does not grant editors powers to remove controversial content, provided it is accurate, sources reputable and law abiding, and all parties have been able to express opinion. This is important to Wikipedia, as it enables free speech and avoids inequitable censorship. Bookend63 (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

this is a wholly unsatisfactory response to very real issues experienced editors have raised. In particular the use of a student newspaper - whatever insight you might possess about its internal processes - is not appropriate as the single source for a long passage such as is being readded. Morwen (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Some things to note:

• Wikipedia is not intended as a "free speech" outlet. "Free speech" is not a reason for the community keeping material here.
• "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word 'controversies'."
• The material contains such things as Responding to Luckhurst's claims, Monbiot wrote: "Occupations brutalise both the occupiers and the occupied. It is our refusal to learn that lesson which allows new colonial adventures to take place. If we knew more about Ireland, the invasion of Iraq might never have happened." Checking the source, that quote comes eight paragraphs after the last mention of Luckhurst in any form (as one of several people covered by the term "these people"), ten paragraphs after the only paragraph mentioning Luckhurst by name, during which much about historical events and current events are discussed.
• Judging by our article on Palatinate (newspaper), it does pass the sniff test for student media being treated as a reliable source per WP:RSSM and should not be simply tossed for being student media.
• Much of the editing on the article in recent years has been from single-purpose accounts Frakofile (talk · contribs) and Bookend63 (talk · contribs) adding to the controversy, LithiumNerd7 (talk · contribs) deleting it. A number of more broadly experienced editors have deleted some or all of the controversy section in the past year (myself included); substantial contributor Materialscientist (talk · contribs) did undo a deletion, although the given reason was "unexplained content removal", as a sourced section had been blanked without editing comment. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the Monbiot/Wind That Shakes The Barley detail, Talk:The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film)#Undue weight in 'Reception' section, may provide at least some relevant context, since I found it somewhat unusual that a "Reception" section of a film contained numerous "reviews" (for want of a better term) from people who hadn't even seen the film to start with. And I don't considering something that boils down to "Luckhurst said something, Monbiot disagreed" worthy of inclusion in Luckhurst's biography unless there is significantly wider context than simply two people disagreeing which doesn't seem to be the case. FDW777 (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• sorry yeah I oversimplified re the student publication. I do not think it is great to be relying on it for such a long passage with so many details (like eg the username). perhaps if we are satisfied its a RS it could warrant like a sentence or so, but even then i'd question that. Morwen (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Johnson Thomaskutty

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.

---

• WP:Articles for deletion/Johnson Thomaskutty

The article's biggest contributor is seemingly the article's subject himself: User:JohnsonThomaskutty, see xtools. Article subjects shouldn't directly edit their articles and they should declare their COI and confirm their identity if they are using their real name as username iirc? Regarding the article, I have to admit that I didn't actually check whether everything is fine, because I was on a somewhat unrelated quest (i.e. investigating the article creator's edits because I noticed some odd stuff in their contributions on Commons leaning into sock/meat territory...). Nakonana (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It's definitely in WP:RESUME territory. The glut of works listed looks extremely WP:UNDUE. It needs extensive decrufting. I've welcome-warned the COI editor. If nobody else does, I'll take a closer look at WP:V for the many WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY (interviews) tomorrow when I return to a desktop. JFHJr (㊟) 21:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Gangs in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

I am Alex Villanueva, the former sheriff of Los Angeles County. Listing me as a gang member is defamatory and libelous. Listing my undersheriff Tim Murakami as a gang member is equally defamatory. There is zero evidence of misconduct on our lengthy work histories and does not merits this designation, and it appears Cerise Castle, a well-known anti-law enforcement activist, is the main source of information that is long on accusations and preciously short on facts.

In fact, the entire entry is poorly sourced using questionable references from compromised sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35584-63 (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Gangs in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Sesquilinear (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the list of alleged gang members as requested, but many of the sources in the article like NPR are pretty solid, and you are someone with a manifest conflict of interest, so I am inclined to take your opinion on the article with a large grain of salt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I trust this issue is in good hands with @Hemiauchenia but I've also watchlisted this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, the LA Sheriff gangs issue is really outside my wheelhouse, but we absolutely should not be labelling people as alleged gang members without multiple good high quality sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 WP:BLPCRIME and WP:LOWPROFILE are both very clear and, as I often point out when this issue is pointed at suspected murderers and alleged terrorists, those policies don't just apply to people we like. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the "We were all cavemen" claim because I can't find any other sources other than Knock LA, and the New Yorker, which states "According to the investigative Web site Knock LA". I just don't think it's enough to pass WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm also a bit concerned about citation 7 right now. It's being used to assert in Wikivoice that specific named officers committed crimes but I cannot access to confirm whether the citation confirms they were convicted of such. Seems to be a work VPN issue - I'm not in my normal office today. Anyone else able to see that one? Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Lee Baca and Paul Tanaka have both been convicted of crimes related to their tenure in the LA police department, so I don't think Wikipedia can really drag their reputation through the gutter any lower than it already is, but I wasn't able to find additional sources discussing the claims so I've removed that particular sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This article has many solid sources and seems like a case of downplaying bad conduct rather libel on Wikipedia's part, also as said before the conflict of interest here is not all that small. AadamentAardvark (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Repeated restoration of private information and evidence of bad-faith article creation – Melik Khoury

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.

---

I am disclosing that I am posting on behalf of Dr. Melik Khoury, the subject of this article, in accordance with Wikipedia's COI disclosure policy. I am posting under a personal account. I am aware that a previous attempt to correct this article was made by a Unity-affiliated account (Unityenvironmental) that was appropriately blocked for username and promotional editing policy violations. I am not affiliated with that account and am following the correct process here.

I am requesting assistance with two related issues on Melik Khoury: a WP:BLP violation that has been restored after removal, and evidence suggesting the article was created in bad faith.

Issue 1: Restoration of private personal information

The Personal life section contains the following sentence:

"He was married but divorced in 2017."

This sentence is sourced solely to a local court records aggregator (PenBay Pilot). My concerns are threefold:

1. Relevance: Dr. Khoury's marital history has no bearing on his public role as a university administrator. WP:BLP states that private information should only be included when it is "clearly relevant to the subject's public role." Unity Environmental University is a private nonprofit institution. Dr. Khoury's marital history is not a matter of public interest in the context of his professional role and does not meet the standard of information clearly relevant to a subject's public duties.
2. Source quality: A local court records aggregator is a weak source for a biographical claim about a living person. BLP requires that such material meet a higher evidentiary standard.
3. Pattern of reinstatement: This content was removed as part of a larger edit that was subsequently reverted on COI grounds, causing the sentence to be reinstated. The sentence has therefore survived two editorial cycles without being challenged on its own merits, despite its questionable basis under BLP.

Issue 2: Evidence of bad-faith article creation

A review of the article's revision history reveals that the article was created and substantially built by a single editor, User:Oswako, beginning in December 2025. The very first version of the article described Dr. Khoury as an "Indian-American mechanical engineer" — a description that is factually wrong in every respect. Dr. Khoury is neither Indian-American nor a mechanical engineer; he is the President and CEO of Unity Environmental University with a doctorate in business administration.

This misidentification does not appear to be an accidental error. It is difficult to explain how someone creating a biography of a specific named individual would describe that person with a completely fabricated ethnicity and profession unless the intent was to harm rather than to inform. I would ask that administrators review Oswako's editing history in the context of this article for evidence of wikihounding or not being here to build an encyclopedia.

I am not requesting removal of the article. I am requesting:

1. Permanent removal of the divorce sentence on BLP grounds
2. Administrator review of the article's creation history in light of the above

I am happy to discuss either issue here before any action is taken.CDboyer46 (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello! It was in fact an accidental error, the result of using the article for Suresh Garimella, the president of the University of Arizona, as a template for building Dr. Khoury's page. I apologize for that error. Oswako (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Three responses

1. the BLP fix is, itself, good. you are right that that that is an entirely inappropriate source.
2. it probably got lost in a revert because the other account that is unaffiliated with you's edit intermingled the valid change with introduction of large amounts of inappropriate promotional language that was apparently generated via an LLM. LLM use for copy is prohibited on wikipedia. See WP:NOLLM. It's also forbidden to generate talk page comments. It is impossible to have a genuine meeting of minds under such conditions.
3. it's actually very easy to see how that could arise by accident - people copy templates from other pages and use them as a skeleton and don't necessarily always update things they should. there is no evidence of wikihounding, which is to say, individual harrassment of you or the other account that is unaffilated with you, since the creation of the article predates any edits by you or the other account that is unaffilated with you

Morwen (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This misidentification does not appear to be an accidental error. It is difficult to explain how someone creating a biography of a specific named individual would describe that person with a completely fabricated ethnicity and profession unless the intent was to harm rather than to inform. This looks very tenuous: it's very common for editors to copy and paste things like infobox formatting from existing articles; it doesn't seem at all implausible that someone doing this might overlook that they've also copied the short description and not change it – especially as the short description is not visible on preview, so it's easy enough to overlook. The idea that someone intended to harm Khoury by referring to him as a mechanical engineer is much less plausible to me; it's not exactly a negative characterisation! I note that Oswako in fact fixed the short description, as far as I can tell unprompted, when they submitted the article for AfC.

Details of Khoury's personal life sourced only to primary legal documents do seem completely unnecessary in this article. I was going to remove the sentence about his divorce but it looks as though I've been beaten to it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Given that the creator has explained how the issue with the ethnicity and description occurred, and the problematic content has been removed now, I suspect this can be closed. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

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

David Weil (filmmaker)

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.

---

Page appears to have been vandalized, replacing names of people/places with "meade" and "meador" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freepit321 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This has since been reverted. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Proposal for a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity

Please see proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. TarnishedPath^talk 06:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Urgent: Page move request for Gemma Collis-McCann

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.

---

•  Courtesy link: Gemma Collis-McCann

I am the nominator of the open move request at Talk:Gemma Collis-McCann to revert the page name to her maiden name, Gemma Collis. The discussion was just relisted for another 7 days due to a lack of comments, but this delay is causing severe distress and impacting the subject's personal welfare. The current title uses an obsolete married name following a divorce in 2020. The athlete officially competes and brands strictly as Gemma Collis, as verified by ParalympicsGB. Leaving this outdated surname active is causing ongoing personal harm. Because this is an entirely uncontroversial name change and a sensitive BLP welfare matter, I urgently request an administrator to bypass the routine 7-day relisting period and execute the page move immediately. ~2026-33332-75 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

OK,  Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

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

An error i noticed

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.

---

I was browsing through wikipedia and noticed the title of the page Xiaoquig Ding is grammatically incorrect and don’t know how to fix this issue. Can someone help me? / 973sister (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like that was a duplicate article in a misspelled namespace. I've redirected to the fuller article without the typo in the title. Good catch! JFHJr (㊟) 15:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Have a nice day… / 973sister (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Kith Meng

• Kith Meng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would anyone be willing to review this article? Its history contains quite an amount of edit warring over corruption allegations (e.g. ). The allegations were ultimately removed without constructive discussion. The current version has some fairly promotional passages, such as the lead.

I found this article by going a down a rabbithole of suspicious (likely UPE) edits.

—Janhrach (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Jeffrey Alford

In 2024, the food writer Naomi Duguid made a post saying her ex-husband Jeffrey Alford had died : "Jeffrey Alford, my ex-partner, with whom I lived and worked and created six books and two wonderful children, now fully grown and blooming, died today in a hospital in southern Thailand, aged sixty-nine." He has not been mentioned in the media since, except one recommendation for a book he wrote. A paid obituary for his son in 2025 describes him as (the late). WP:BLPSPS appears absolute that this cannot be mentioned, even as an attributed "On January 16, 2024, Duguid published a post on Instagram stating that Alford had died that day in southern Thailand". I have removed the statement, but under WP:COMMONSENSE this exclusion appears crazy. Confirming that there is no way for this to be mentioned under Wikipedia policy. Whonting (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I have been starting to think we need a solution to cases like this. it feels cruel that the best we can say to a grieving family is to advise them to get a newspaper or another reliable source to cover such an event. One possibility I have been thinking of is a special unit that operates a little bit like VRT that can verify these using a methodology that we would then be able to accept as a reliable source. Morwen (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It is astonishingly cruel for family members to have to go on Wikipedia and read that someone they love and know is dead is still alive, even after a statement has been released that very credibly establishes death as fact. I appreciate you making the VRT unit suggestion, although the last thing I want for grieving families is to have to deal with Wikipedia bureaucracy, and it seems to rest on the idea that we are either reaching out to people to confirm their loved ones are dead (bad) or reporting they are still alive until a family member or loved one is so hurt such that they are moved to action (bad).

Does anyone believe in this instance that adding an attributed claim such as the above would be harming Wikipedia? If not, I will invoke IAR and add it in. Whonting (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

(I could talk more about how I’m thinking that could work but perhaps this is the wrong place for details and even to bring it up and I should start a thing on VPP or elsewhere.)

with respect to this case i can’t fault your reasoning. Morwen (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the paid obituary for his son would be fine? It's not independent but it's an official notice that ran in a reputable newspaper. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

As he is self-evidently dead BLP does not apply to him, and any of these sources are usable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

While I'm not going to fight any addition, the issue IMO is fact checking. From what I understand many newspapers do require some form of evidence is provided before they will run an obit on a person even paid ones. I highly doubt they do any fact checking or require any evidence for other stuff said in the obit unless it's extremely questionable. I strongly suspect obits have run where a parent is described as dead when they weren't due to extreme estrangement. Whether due to genuine confusion by those who wrote the obit who thought the parent really was as the person who died has always said the parent was. Or when what's actually meant is as far as the person who died is concerned the parent is dead, but they don't explain that level of detail. To be clear I don't think this happened here just that it was published in a newspaper is IMO fairly meaningless. I actually think a letter to the editor is more likely to have some degree of fact checking if the person said to be deceased has some profile. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It is meaningful because the fact that it was published somewhere is a lot better than some internet posting, and a lot more verifiable for us. We don't have any way to determine what is or is not specifically fact checked in any individual paper other than evidence of what they've done before. And it's not like non-paid obits, even from outlets like Associated Press are immune.... PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Para, are you supporting mention of him being deceased as of 2025, or are you drawing on the paid obituary for his son to establish the IG post as sufficiently reliable to add an attributed or wikivoice claim that he died in January 2024? Whonting (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the paid obit is fine to say that he was dead as of that date. I don't know about the Instagram post. I wouldn't object to it, if it's established that they were relatives. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't really think it is. While it's true that degree of fact checking can be limited (although from what I remember of the Alahverdian there were fake documents or misuse of funeral services), we generally assume that there is some when it comes to reliable sources otherwise we wouldn't treat them as reliable. I see no reason to think there's any real fact checking when it comes to paid obits except to ensure the person the obit for seems to be deceased. (I did look into this before since I was wondering if said obits are actually useful even for the person they're about and found out it's common that a death certificate or something similar is required). So it's really just whatever the family or whoever took out the obit said. Therefore it's little better than a social media post from a verified family member. The only minor difference is that there's a reasonable chance the paper might do something if evidence is provided the information is wrong. In the case of someone fairly prominent like here, it's perhaps easier to imagine someone who knows it isn't correct might contact the paper although still far from guaranteed. For social media posts by a family member, very often the family member can control what is posted so can removing anything say it's false so the only real option is to post it somewhere else. (Although this doesn't apply to e.g. classmate Facebook pages or town obit pages where we can generally assume this can be disputed.) Significantly, in the far more common case we get where some footballer or whatever who was active 40 years ago, I think there's a very low chance anyone will notice if the person is incorrectly reported as deceased in a family members paid obit and complain to whoever posted it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"we generally assume that there is some when it comes to reliable sources otherwise we wouldn't treat them as reliable" This assumption is usually wrong. "Therefore it's little better than a social media post from a verified family member." Not in terms of verifiability, permanence, the historical record, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Some of the above discussions seem to be premised on the idea we're causing distress to the family by not mentioning Alford's death. (To be clear, we don't clearly say whether he's alive or deceased so we're not saying he's alive when he's not.) While there have been cases where family members or friends have been distressed by our lack of mention, is there any evidence of that here?

I ask because his author profile on on Hachette says Jeffrey is currently developing a series of intensive culinary tours through northeastern Thailand and western Cambodia (the Angkor Wat area) under the name of Heritage Food Thailand.. His profile on Harper Collins , Penguin House , FreshFiction still treats it like he is together with Duguid and he lives in Toronto despite their seperation in 2008 and moving to Thailand a while before 2015 . His profile on Douglad-McIntyre does at least mention he lives in Thailand (I think he published one of his post move books there) but again no mention of his death .

What seems to be a personal Facebook which hasn't been publicly updated since 2017 also has no mention of his death. And I'm not certain the partner listed there is who was with him just before his death. To be clear, I don't doubt he's passed there have been other posts about it e.g. and and as I said I'm not going to revert any addition to our article on him, I'm just going to leave the mention in the article on his ex-wife. But I've remarked before we have to be careful about neither over-estimating nor underestimating the influence of Wikipedia.

We've had cases before were someone has complained about something and the responses from some editors has been, well even if we change it, it it's not going to change all the other sources out there which IMO is often wrong. But at the same time, we shouldn't assume Wikipedia is the end all & what we do matters so much.

In this case, it strikes me that it probably wouldn't be that hard for his family to have the author profiles updated on the publisher pages to mention his death. And it also strikes me there's a non zero chance they actually matter more. I can easily imagine a fan might reach out to the publisher and write something under the belief Alford is still alive e.g. 'I can't wait to buy your next book'. Some might even miss that he separated from Duguid. And depending on what instructions the publisher have (who to be clear might very well know Alford is deceased even if their profiles weren't update& either way might have received updated instructions), might forward them on in a way which will reach surviving family. And frankly, such things seem more likely to cause distress than our article simply not mentioning his passing.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Whether it does or does not hurt their feelings, it plainly makes us look ridiculous to say a guy is alive when he clearly, clearly isn't.

I don't expect an author profile written by the subject years before he died to ever be updated. Those author profiles never update, really, unless there's a new book, since as far as I can tell they're often mined from book blurbs. I've seen ones from people who did 20+ years ago that refer to them as still living. I once saw one from a publisher online about a guy who died in the 1980s speaking about him as if he was still alive. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, we never said he's alive. We just don't mention he's dead. And you're missing the key point. People are treating this like it's a major moral failing on Wikipedia's part but I'm very far from convinced it is. While I can understand it does matter to some people, I think for most people, they don't care whether something on the internet hasn't been updated to report that their family member is deceased. This seems to be the case here, since as I said, it seems to me that the blurbs are far more likely to be the cause of possible distress to family members if it causes them to receive contact as if they are alive, and I'm sure they could easily ask for them to be updated but they don't. Your examples would seem to prove the point that it just doesn't matter that much to most people. That's why they're never updated on the request of family members when I'm sure they could be. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Saying he "is" is stating directly that he is alive.

I'm not saying it's a moral failing, I don't care either way in the moral department, but I am saying this: it is stupid and bad from an encyclopedic point of view. That is all. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Blurbs on commercial sites are not going to be nearly as viewed and influential as Wikipedia. Also, I don't even think asking those to update would work, I've never seen them be updated like that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

it plainly makes us look ridiculous to say a guy is alive when he clearly, clearly isn't I'm not convinced by any of this. Firstly, we're barely saying that Alford is alive; other than using the word "is" rather than "was" in the first sentence there's no indication in the text of the article that he is still alive. Secondly, I don't think that our failure to update a frankly pretty obscure article (averaging 13 views per day last year!) makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. It would be a much worse reflection on Wikipedia to update an article to claim that someone is dead based on poor sources and then have that turn out not to be the case. Thirdly, that Alford "clearly isn't" still alive is somewhat overstating the case. The sources for his death are (1) an instagram post by his ex-partner, and (2) an obituary for his son which mentions that he is dead in passing in a parenthetical. I don't doubt that it's true, but "clearly dead" is significantly overstating the case here. It's not like his death was headline news internationally, in which case failure to update our article in a timely manner might actually negatively impact Wikipedia. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Using is rather than was is pretty major!

I would say that is pretty clear. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

to be clear, I was talking about the general case, which I should probably not have been. Morwen (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed 'is' to 'was' in the article, with a link to this discussion. It's reasonably clear that the subject is deceased, though I don't think the sources really good enough to cite a death date. If you are being pedantic here, there is a well established precedent (WP:BDP) to change 'is' to 'was' on articles where the subject is probably dead but there is not a reliable source clearly confirming it, and as far as I am concerned there is little difference here. Strictly speaking, by changing 'is' to 'was' we aren't even making a clear claim about the living status of the subject. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Following the above, and what I see as a general acceptance if not endorsement of an addition, I have inserted an attributed statement from Duguid saying Alford died in January 2024. Whonting (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

DNA testing services - are they reliable?

23 and Me, Ancestry dot com etc, we've all seen them, personally I wouldn't think them reliable for reporting on say "daddy's 23% dog, 25% sloth and 50% Alsation", in a BLP, but it's been edit warred back in to Kelsey Merritt a recently expanded article, and I'm not going to be slow motion edit warring there. It appears to be low traffic, and the subject boosters are having a field day with flowery prose. I'm not exactly comfortable working on BLPs, but I'd be very interested in others opinion. Thx. - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 06:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that these kinds of services are fairly reliable for identifying close family members who have also used the system (if they tell you someone is a half-sibling or first cousin, you probably are genuinely closely related to you!) but much less reliable for giving geographical or ethnic details about your ancestry more broadly (a claim like "23% German ancestry" should be taken with several large pinches of salt).

Just doing some quick googling, this LiveScience article broadly backs up my own prior belief: "Saying you are 30 percent East Asian or Celtic is just a statistical inference about your genome and hardly reflects your real ancestry", according to the scientist they quote.

On the specific issue of Kelsey Merritt, even if we assume these results are 100% accurate, they don't actually verify the claims made in the article. We say "an American father of French, German, British, and Irish descent"; even accepting that the 50% of her ancestry from Southeast Asia comes from her Filipino mother and the 50% from Europe comes from her white father (not strictly supported by the test, and it wouldn't be impossible for e.g. a Filipino woman to have some Spanish ancestry somewhere down the line...), "French & German" and "British & Irish" are two of the buckets which 23&me sorts ancestry into; when they say that you have "French & German" ancestry it does not necessarily mean that you have both but potentially just one or the other. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a "No" yes? - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 14:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yup, not even a remotely reliable source for the content it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

As far as I understand those services as a layperson, people also dramatically misunderstand what they're trying to imply in their marketing. They aren't actually tracking your heritage but basically comparing what's taken from you to their reference library. So you're not "23% German ancestry" but that of your markers a certain percentage share commonality with the reference samples taken from those in Germany who frankly could be from anywhere themselves. This is why all the companies give different (sometimes drastically so) results.

It's all pretty much a marketing gimmick with about as much proof of ancestry as a Myers–Briggs "test" is a psychoanalytical tool. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the section in the article, thank you to those responding. - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 16:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Marie-France van Heel

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.

---

• WP:Articles for deletion/Marie-France van Heel

Wife of the UK Prime-Minister-in-waiting Andy Burnham, so high profile. I did a good long search for sources for her notability that don't rely on her husband and frankly failed, so I've sent it to AfD, but can any of you excellent sleuths find something I've missed? Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:WITHDRAWN is a good read, and the XfD [quickClose] link works great if you have the tools installed. JFHJr (㊟) 04:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Matteo de Nora

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 have been repeated additions of the description "billionaire playboy" to the article on Matteo de Nora by different anonymous and temporary accounts. This characterization has been challenged and previously removed as unsupported or poorly sourced, yet it continues to be reintroduced, resulting in ongoing edit warring.

Could an administrator please consider temporary page protection or semi-protection to prevent further disruptive reinsertions and allow discussion to take place on the talk page? The repeated additions appear to be coming from unregistered or temporary users and are making it difficult to maintain a stable version of the article.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiordanaNuovaZelanda (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like you might be looking for WP:RPP. I took a look at the history, and although there's been a spate of problematic additions (June 2026), they were revered and have not occurred again. Because the problem is not chronic or ongoing, it probably will not result in an action at RPP. If you notice it happening again, especially twice again, please consider posting a request for page protection at RPP. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yue, thank you for your revert there! JFHJr (㊟) 01:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Gregg Renkes

There is a discussion at Talk:Gregg Renkes#Career regarding coverage of Renkes career, particularly his tenure as Alaska Attorney General. I would appreciate having a second or third opinion. Jfire (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Darializa Avila Chevalier

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.

---

Alterations are being made to the draft to change the region of origin of parents to Haiti. All reliable documentation states Dominican Republic as parental region of origin. There is an active campaign to re-assign familial origins to Haiti, remarked upon here, by Mayor Mamdani: https://www.reddit.com/r/newyorkcity/comments/1ud0yhd/zohran_mamdani_calls_out_espaillats_insanely/

The purpose is a racial or ethnic reassignment by political opponent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le-Belle-Dame-Sans-Merci (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

There's one edit that did that, which was reverted. One edit does not an "active campaign" make. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 16:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Discussion at Talk:Charley Crockett § Mug shot

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Charley Crockett § Mug shot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Peter John (political scientist)

Peter John (political scientist) Peter John CBE FBA (Political Scientist) - this entry continues to conflate two entirely distinct men who share both this name and senior roles in London-based universities. The one who may have been intended is an educational administrator/leader, who is currently Vice Chancellor of the West of England, awarded a CBE for his services. But he is neither a political scientist, nor a scholar of the eminence associated with Fellowship of the British Academy (FBA). Those attributes belong to Professor Peter John of Kings College, University of London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-32606-99 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I have verified this and updated the article appropriately. What do you think would be an appropriate name for it? Peter John (educationist)? Morwen (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft: Richard Benjamin Cass

I am an established content creator with a history of documenting airline history biographies, specifically relating to Braniff Airways. I have formally disclosed my Conflict of Interest on my user profile at User:Mmb777e.

I have addressed a series of shifting, sequential objections from local reviewers regarding sourcing, tone, and duplication, and have consolidated all text back to its oldest, original master page at Draft:Richard Benjamin Cass.

The current reviewers are continually moving the goalposts—shifting from concerns about self-sourcing to content tone, to COI, and ultimately to unsubstantiated accusations of account sharing. I request an independent, neutral, third-party administrator to review the current text for baseline BLP compliance and neutrality on the article's talk page at Draft talk:Richard Benjamin Cass. Mmb777e (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

You had coding in place to suppress the links, I fixed this.

This is not necessarily an administrator matter, administrators have no more authority than any other editor in content issues.

Different reviewers will see different things. This is not a deliberate moving of the goalposts. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the links, 331dot. I understand that content decisions are made by consensus rather than administrative decree. To help establish that consensus, the draft at Draft:Richard Benjamin Cass has now been stripped of all self-published sources and is backed exclusively by independent, secondary historical citations. Since the technical and account issues are resolved, I would appreciate any feedback from neutral editors here on whether the current draft meets baseline BLP and neutrality standards so we can move past the local deadlock. Mmb777e (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Maia arson crimew

Raising concerns about the article on Maia arson crimew (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew).

The subject is notable — she was covered by Bloomberg, AP, The Verge, and others in connection with real hacking incidents and a US federal indictment. That's not the issue.

The issue is the sourcing and scope of the article beyond those core facts. A substantial number of citations go directly to the subject's own tweets, Tumblr posts, and personal blog. This includes factual claims about her birth date, her name, her pronouns, and her self-identification as autistic. Under WP:BLP, the bar for sourcing personal details about living people should be higher than the subject's own social media.

The Personal Life section in particular seems disproportionate to her public profile and is almost entirely self-sourced. It reads less like encyclopedic content and more like a curated personal biography written from the subject's own online presence.

I'd flag this for review under WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. The article could reasonably be reduced to its well-sourced core — the hacking incidents, the indictment, and the public reaction — with the personal life material either trimmed heavily or held to a higher sourcing standard. ~2026-36543-50 (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the issue here. It posted its birthdate explicitly, so that's fine, its name (+ pronunciation and stylization) -and pronouns is something we have to get right, so that's fine. I mean, if we removed the section, it would literally all have to go in a hatnote right at the very top of the article. The only bits sourced to primary sources that are the least bit iffy are two sentences saying that crimew runs a blog and identifies as autistic. That's... not a lot. The article also uses Template:psrs, so it's very easy to tell that very little of the article relies on that (there's also a primary source that is used in conjunction with two secondary sources to add more info on some hack of some sort). 1brianm7 (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. The birthdate, pronouns, etc - that's fine, there isn't a reason to doubt it and there's much less reason to lie about it. However, the identification as being autistic is definitely needing of some stricter sourcing. I boldly removed it. The name change also follows, but I haven't removed this one as it's literally the article title and there has to be some explanation as to why it's that. I am leaning to removal, though, considering the only proof it's her legal name on the article is her saying 'i am now legally maia arson' in one tweet. jolielover♥talk 17:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources (at the very least, Them and CNN) from after 2021 refer to her as maia arson crimew so that's the current common name regardless of the name change being a legal name change. Sesquilinear (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I know, not saying that should be changed, but the article explicitly states that it's her legal name which can reasonably be doubted. jolielover♥talk 17:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Leslie Jones (comedian)

There's been some grumblings by commentators outside of WP that it's an unflattering photo, and it's started to gain traction on social media. However, I can see it's the only image we have which is why it was used. There's been a topic on the talk page saying the same thing. What should be done? I can't think of any solution outside of getting a new image.

• Talk:Leslie_Jones_(comedian)#Request to replace the main Infobox photo for Leslie Jones

Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I think there are two alternatives here: someone either finds or creates a new appropriately licensed image to replace the current one of or go with no image at all. Jones is still alive so a non-free image is pretty much a non-starter. You could, if you want, try contacting Jones or her representatives to see whether she or they would be willing to provide a better image to use and license it per c:COM:Licensing. You could also trying appealing to the copyright holders of any better images of Jones you might find online (e.g., c:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change) to see if you can find anyone willing to do so. Finally, a bit of a long shot perhaps, but you could try reaching out to one of the users who tend to upload celebrity photos to Commons and see if they could help; for example, c:User:Gage seems to have uploaded lots of such photos to Commons and also seems to be active on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards removing the image outright for now. Typically I'm a "an image is better than no image" type thing, but it is from the side and at a distance so it doesn't really help viewers that much. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I concur. But then again I'm a "no image is better than a bad image" person. The bottom line: if the image detracts from the article, it should go. Generalrelative (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with it. Sure, it's unflattering, but the accusations of racism are far-fetched. It's just her mid-speech. If you see her singing and immediately think of the angry black woman stereotype, I think it says more on you. Not all us women are dolled up and dainty looking and expressionless 24/7, especially not when performing on a stage. Anyway, the problem here is that it's a side view rather than a clear shot of her face. Got hope from this Flickr image but seems to be incorrect license (see her talk page for my full explanation). But, even if there is no other image available - I still feel like the one on her article is fine enough. Get an idea of what she looks like. jolielover♥talk 15:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Some people on social media are speculating that it was intentionally chosen to be unflattering. The thing is that most people don't understand how Wikipedia works, and often know even less about image licensing. But, we should try to avoid even the appearance of bias. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

People who want to see bias will see it anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

If leslie jones is specifically complaining about the photo, thats a very strong case for removal.

if it’s unflattering in general, we might as well remove it, even if leslie jones didnt directly complain User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Lots of grumbling, but literally no one's done anything. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

That's how social media goes. Grumble about something, do nothing. jolielover♥talk 05:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

she’s on tour right now apparently. we just need one enthusiastic person with a good seat. Morwen (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Porn link?

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.

---

I’ve only ever read wiki articles, so I might be in the wrong spot to ask about this, but I was reading the page on Rob McKenna and the link for citation 9 about the equal justice campaign takes you to Asian porn. ~2026-36752-61 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Fixed with an archive link, thanks. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Jame Veitch RFC on adding sexual allegations to limited lead

I'd like to invite additional community input on this active RfC regarding whether sexual allegations should be included in an already limited lead. Participation has been fairly limited so far, and given the topic and its potential implications for a living person, I think broader community participation would be beneficial before the discussion is closed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Veitch_(comedian)#rfc_3915219

Coffeeurbanite (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Lord Forsyth

why has the amounts raised for charity been removed. This has been in place since the funds were raised well over a decade ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumlean (talk • contribs) 09:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Drumlean:, in the future, please sign your comments. I'd also recommend bringing the issues with the page up in the talk page before escalating here. jolielover♥talk 11:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Palmer Luckey

Is showing a photo of Palmer Luckey's home appropriate? This feels excessively invasive for a "personal life" section, perhaps it should be removed until another image of the boat can be sourced. Ighs (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

From a copyright standpoint, a photo of someone's home in the US visible from a publicly accessible location is acceptable due to there being freedom of panorama under US copyright law for habitable structures like houses and buildings, particularly if the home is part of a larger scene and any potentially copyright-eligible design elements aren't the focus of the photo. You could argue for the file's removal based on encyclopedic relevance and seek consensus for its removal by posting as much on the article's talk page, but that won't lead to the file's deletion per se; it will still be on Wikimedia Commons. The license the file is released under should, in pinciple, allow an image of the just the boat to cropped as long everything is properly attributed to the original copyright holder; so, I guess that could also be an option to discuss on the article's talk page. The email address of the photo's copyright holder is given as part of its license; so, you could just ask them if they have one of the boat alone that they'd be willing to release. If Luckey's home has been the covered in stories about him in reliable sources or has been posted about by him or others, then arguing that a photo of the home and his boat taken at quite a bit of distance violates WP:BLPPRIVACY seems, at least to me, like it's going to be hard to gain a consensus in favor of removal. There's also the Streisand effect to consider and how making a fuss about the photo might increase awareness of it, including outside of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Dee Palmer

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

Is ASX TV a reliable source for Dee Palmer's date of death? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• AXS is a big music and lifestyle TV channel in the US (it's better known for selling tickets to concerts over in the UK) but I don't see why it would not be reliable (and its source is Ian Anderson's social media, so that's OK). HAving said that, there are more mainstream sources here and here. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not questioning that Palmer is dead; I'm questioning the certainty over the date, which is not mentioned by Anderson, or either of your sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

[Restored from archive]. This is not yet resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)