Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

At 7:40 into an episode of the Full Send podcast published last month, Sophie Rain claimed that she started with a fake age and that she was 23 (2001/2). Her 2004 age appears in several. Two questions:

• Are any of the below appropriate sources to say that she was on the podcast (in which case the age should probably be removed):
  • Complex (Complex Networks, which Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide says is no consensus)
  • The Blast (TMZ derivative which I questioned at Template:Did you know nominations/Kayla Simmons)
  • Mandatory (Mandatory (company))
  • Where is the Buzz
• If not, would this post from her TikTok be sufficient for "September 22" per WP:ABOUTSELF?--Launchballer 09:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

She was on the podcast (in which case the age should probably be removed) is a non-sequitur. To my knowledge no one is denying she was on the podcast. The article cites several WP:GREL sources saying Rain was 20 years old in 2024–2025. Per WP:DOBCONFLICT, we should simply include all birth years for which reliable sources exist. In this case that would be 2004/2005.

Despite several users opining that combining different sources for the birthday and year of birth of a living person to arrive at an exact date of birth is a routine calculation, I maintain that it's improper synthesis and not what is meant by "routine". Therefore the September 22nd birthday should be omitted as unencyclopedic trivia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You maintain that but no one agrees. If simply adding year and birth date together is not a routine calculation then literally nothing is and really, constructing any article at all off of multiple sources is synth (because we're adding it together from multiple sources to form one article). see WP:NOTSYNTH PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Determining a person's current age from their date of birth given in a reliable source, such as by plugging the numbers into {{birth date and age}}, is a perfect example of a routine calculation that does not involve going beyond the intended meaning of the sources. Stating or implying something that goes beyond the meaning of the sources is what original research generally and WP:SYNTH specifically means, which is explained clearly for those who wish to actually read those policies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? And how does saying someone was born September 22 when they said they were born on September 22 "state or imply something that goes beyond the meaning of the sources"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the question. A person's birthday is not the same as their full date of birth. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One's full date of birth is not some higher level concept, it is your birthday and the year. If you have a source that says the birthday and you have a source that says the year that is not meaningfully distinct intellectually from having one that says both at once. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is meaningfully distinct because a person's full date of birth can be used by cyberstalkers and identity thieves, whereas a birthday or year of birth alone is less useful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

combining different sources for the birthday and year of birth - I have no opinion on this particular article, but just wanted to note that I had asked a similar question about this at Talk:Bonnie_Blue_(actress)/Archive_1#RfC:_Blue's_full_DOB ("is it OR/SYNTH to put the birth month and day from one source with the birth year from another source to come up with a full DOB?") and Seraphimblade said "It is very common for articles to combine together material from different sources." Some1 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Commonality is one thing, actually adhering to WP:OR & WP:BLP is another. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is, again, in no way OR. Under this very eccentric interpretation literally any form of constructing an article (which is always going to be combining multiple sources) would be OR. That is obviously not what OR means! PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research § Combining sources to get a full DOB to get other editors' thoughts on this. Some1 (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not OR/SYNTH, which is primarily against cobbling two sources to say somehow what neither one does. Combining sentences is not SYNTH. Combining a DOB and YOB is more akin to having two claims in a sentence, separated by a comma, with each phrase supported by refs to two different reliable sources. Calculations and ambiguities are addressed at WP:DOB/WP:DOBCONFLICT. Putting date and year together into a sentence or a full date doesn't change the meaning of the sources, but puts a comma between them in wikivoice. The only difference is DOB+YOB citation markup around a template will put them together at the end of the claim, even though there are two parts. In long-text, you can still put a cite on each side of the comma in the date. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 20:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a celebrity has deliberately not posted their full date of birth out of concern about stalking, harassment, and/or identity theft, then extrapolating their full DOB is pretty obviously going beyond the intended meaning of the (self-published) source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I think Rjensen opined similarly to me at Wikitalk. @Some1, I'm unsure how a new Wikitalk forum in the midst of this open discussion isn't redundant. Without archiving or closure here, it appears to fray things. If you'd like to transclude that discussion here to give consensus a chance, I can do that for you. JFHJr (㊟) 20:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is about Sophie Rain, and the one I started on the NOR talk page is more generic and applies to any BLPs (the NOR discussion is the one I'll be using as reference when editors claim that combining sources to get a full DOB is OR/Synth). If you could, since your response is a reply to my generic question, can you copy and paste your comment to that discussion. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JFHJr. The "synthesis" to be avoided is a new factual statement . If source X says born 2002, and Y says birthday in May, and Z says born on the 22nd, then combining into "she was born May 22, 2002" reports three facts and adds zero new information -- so zero synthesis. Furthermore, permissible routine calculation says she was born on a Wednesday. Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH applies to conclusions and implications, not just new facts. I'll add that Rjensen was also WP:CANVASSED by JFHJr above . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't canvass. I offered a reason not to fray a discussion across fora. The different fora are still blurring stated distinctions within questions as framed. You have to read my comment without context to get to canvassing. WP:ABF noted, cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Calico cats are black, orange and white.[source 1] Tortoiseshell cats are black and orange.[source 2]

John Smith was born on July 22.[source 1] John Smith was born in 2001.[source 2]

By your logic, if the second is synth, how is the first not? It was not the intention of the first source to say anything about the second topic, was it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're getting at. What am I supposed to conclude about tortoiseshell cats? Also, this is the WP:BLP noticeboard; cats are not people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What are you supposed to conclude in either case? It is two facts, sequentially. You are not concluding anything.

OR applies to everything, and we do not apply a different OR standard to BLPs as cats. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs do have different standards, because we have a presumption in favor of privacy. Whether a person's full birth date is stated as two sequential facts instead of one doesn't make any difference if it fails to meet WP:DOB sourcing requirements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I get the presumption in favor of privacy but if that's what we wanna do it makes more sense to not include the birth year at all that to include an inaccurate one. ~2026-10534-3 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only possibly inaccurate. We can't determine that based on a random podcast unless published by the subject themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A source stating something regarding themselves in an interview is an ABOUTSELF statement, though. If there is otherwise no reason to doubt it and it's not about a third party (and assuming whatever info is DUE, obviously), that seems like taking an ultra strict letter of the law approach to the policy rather than the spirit to avoid any and all statements made by someone in any podcast, which seems counter to common sense. "I was born in 1970 in Greensboro, NC and attended Bayside High School" stated by Sally Celebrity in a podcast for Harry Hollywood should otherwise be a reliable source for where they were born, the year of birth, and their high school, so I can't really see the argument for exclusion of it being unusable since Sally wasn't the person who published the podcast.

The bit about podcasts being a part of BLPSPS which you linked to was also added to the policy in 2024 by you, almost immediately after another edit which removed an otherwise non-controversial ABOUTSELF statement made on a podcast from a bio whilst citing the same policy.

Awshort (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to clarify that podcasts can be another type of self-published source along with books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts. We should avoid citing podcasts unless published by the subject themselves, just like the other types of sources listed.

Why is Sally Celebrity's statement on Harry Hollywood's podcast ABOUTSELF while her interview on Harry Hollywood's blog isn't? WP:ABOUTSELF is about sources published by the subject themselves, which does not apply in this case.

WP:RSPYT applies here as well, with the community's consensus being that Content uploaded from a verified official account [...] may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. Which in this case defaults to zero per WP:SPS.

Common sense says that people lie all the time, which is why we rely on sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If the argument is that Rain faked her age for OnlyFans, how do we know she's not faking her age on the podcast too? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing. We don't. It is obvious she wants to be misleading about her age. But the podcast is no more likely to be false/misleading than the gossip blog they took the 2004/05 birth year from. I have also found her birth record online and know she's actually 23, but that site would never qualify as WP:RS. ~2026-10534-3 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What gossip blog is that? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, you admit that it's possibly inaccurate? Why the heck is it still listed then? If we don't want to list her birth year for privacy reasons then fine. But either include the correct birth year or none at all! ~2026-10534-3 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question of whether it is technically synthesis is missing the bigger issue.

WP:BLPDOB says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." We do not have a date of birth published by third-party reliable sources, and we do not have an instance where the subject gave her full date of birth at once, either in the form of an exact date or as something akin to a "it's my 25th birthday today!" post. While we may be able to paste together a date from things she's said in various places, that does not conquer the "may reasonably be inferred" bar. The precise birthdate is not essential to the article being useful and understood, and we can do without for now. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions to the page raise concerns regarding neutrality, relevance, and source accuracy. The inserted content places undue emphasis on caste identity and draws editorial conclusions based on what the subject has not commented on, which constitutes synthesis rather than encyclopedic reporting. Although references are cited, they do not substantiate the specific claims made in the text. As the subject is a living person with limited public notability, such poorly supported and interpretive material risks violating neutral point of view and biographical standards. Removal or revision is therefore necessary to ensure verifiability and neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArjunMenon1996 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ArjunMenon1996: It seems you've already made the requisite change, which looks fine to me. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All are sourced and not defaming a living person. You seem to be an experienced editor with just 10 edits .

i have removed he is proud being a Brahmin.

Wikipedia is not a PR stage for Indian right wing- BJP RSS.

see narendra modi article if you have doubt Nammamnglrian (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nammamnglrian: I've reverted you because the content you restored seems to be original research; please find reliable sources talking about his supposed non-reporting (selective reporting?) before adding it in again. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a reliable source, I have added is a notable new paper article Nammamnglrian (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an online copy of it somewhere? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i guess not, it is published offline and is a notable newspaper. also the controversy is not a defaming one and is not personal damanging, its talking of he did not aknowledged a speciffic court case Nammamnglrian (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see why we have to source arguably tabloid-like criticism to sources that are very hard or even impossible to verify. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is a critism against him, not a controversy, can be placed under it.

The artcile discuss that 'he is vocal on all the court verdicts regarding temples and hindus in kerala, but kept mum like he never sees on the historical court verdict which allow non brahmins to be the preists of all temples in kerala. He conveniently omit it , and the article disucss on his double stadard beign a brahmin and and a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh figure who promote right wing hindutwa in kerala'.

He is the ideological intelluctaul of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in Kerala. As Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh never keep a ledger you never know who is who.

This is worth mentioning, at least in controversy, as wikipedia is neutral and not a PR platform for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Nammamnglrian (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And the offline news publication is the only source you can find for this? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

actually this artcle yes is offline. Nammamnglrian (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the line, discusing political double standards back to the article Nammamnglrian (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about politics or PR. The issue is that the sources do not clearly support the conclusions written, and the paragraph is based on interpretation, especially by pointing out what the person has not spoken about. Wikipedia content should be neutral and verifiable. ArjunMenon1996 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeffrey Sachs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this Politico article,[1] which has some background on an incident where Carlos Calenda, an Italian senator, called Jeffrey Sachs a liar and then contains an interview with Calenda, reliable for information from the pre-interview content? For instance: "In 2025, Carlo Calenda accused Sachs of lying about the US orchestrating the Euromaidan protests in 2014."?

Courtesy pings to @Rsk6400 and @Hipal. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMO yes. The broader overview given in the source's own voice prior to the transcript of an interview is no different than any other piece that same source would have done containing original writing about the subject. GMG^talk 18:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Talk:Jeffrey_Sachs#Calenda_and_Popova's_remarks

Pre-interview content serves to introduce the interview and entice readers. Often, though probably not in this case, it is written by public relations people on behalf of the interviewee. Regardless, it, or a version of it, is usually presented to the interviewee for approval, often before the interview. So generally it's promotional enough in one way or another to be of questionable encyclopedic value alone. --Hipal (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "promotional enough but probably isn't but other things sometimes are" is really a standard we normally apply. GMG^talk 19:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clearer, the lede from an interview should be treated as a promotional piece for the interviewee. --Hipal (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence in this case? FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope editors that would recognize the dynamics of interviews. WP:IV does: For example, the introduction to an interview may rely entirely on facts provided by the interviewee. In general, the longer and more detailed the material, and the more reliable the publication, the more likely secondary-source material in an interview is to have undergone proper fact-checking.@Mr. Stradivarius: --Hipal (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Best ask a clearer question then, perhaps indicating what background you have in the subject matter. --Hipal (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The background seems to be Politico as a secondary source covering something that apparently happened live on Italian television and garnered response from a public official, with the primary sources themselves cited in the secondary source. GMG^talk 20:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized that the distinction between "in this case" and in general would be unclear anyone.

You said "the lede from an interview should be treated as a promotional piece for the interviewee." That's a general claim. I asked what your evidence is that the lead of the Calenda interview was promotional content for Calenda. Your answer said nothing about Calenda's interview, nor did you provide any evidence. Is that clearer? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer. Thank you. The linked sources, the language used, and the lack of supporting sources of equal or better quality than this interview. --Hipal (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What linked sources are you referring to that suggest it is promotional? LordCollaboration (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking to the discussion, sorry I missed that before.

Regarding if it's due, don't the several opinion pieces on this help establish due weight of the event? This incident seems to have more discussion in reliable secondary sources than most other parts of this section (for example, we have "In June 2022, he co-signed an open letter calling for a "ceasefire" in the war, questioning Western countries' continuing military support for Ukraine." citing just the letter that he signed). The Politico piece I added to get a neutral summary of the incident, but I think the other pieces (Policy Magazine, Linkiesta, Il Foglio, etc.) could be used to add some (attributed) material, so this wouldn't be kept alone. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question about a silly topic: Does this edit[2] address an actual BLP violation?

Related: https://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1287661/Think/

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While it was obviously unserious, WP:BLPTALK does apply: 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. BLPTALK is a lot more permissive than people often think - I read it as (unsourced or poorly sourced) and (not related to making content choices), so anything that has any reasonable connection to content choices is allowed and cannot be removed - but this wasn't about article content, and there's no exception for "it was a joke bro". And for good reason! While I can understand the "stop being so humorless!!" response, consider what it would mean if a joke like that took off and "Person XYZ has a cocaine problem!" became a meme or something. Not great, and therefore not something talk pages should really be used for. Jokes are fine, and covering stuff like that in the context of article discussion is fine; but arbitrary jokes that are at someone's expense are still BLP violations and can reasonably be removed. (Also, why was the link changed but the header left the same?) --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What about obviously satirical material? WP:BLP is evidently silent on satire. At a minumum, I think BLP certainly means that we should clearly identify satire as such, because taken literally it's by nature contentious. Edit: modified section header accordingly (not meaning to step on any toes). --Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 00:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC);added a bit, 00:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC); 00:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does not mention an exception for satire because there is no exception for satire and shouldn't be. PackMecEng (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that "we should clearly identify satire as such" is not an acceptable answer to me or to most people who write or post parodies. "Forbidden by BLP" and "Allowed by BLP" are acceptable and should be discussed, but "must be labeled as satire or parody" is not an acceptable answer for the following reason:

In the rather famous Onion Supreme Court Amicus Brief[3] this exact question was addressed as follows:

"The Sixth Circuit’s ruling imperils an ancient form of discourse. The court’s decision suggests that parodists are in the clear only if they pop the balloon in advance by warning their audience that their parody is not true. But some forms of comedy don’t work unless the comedian is able to tell the joke with a straight face.

Parody is the quintessential example. Parodists intentionally inhabit the rhetorical form of their target in order to exaggerate or implode it -- and by doing so demonstrate the target’s illogic or absurdity.

Put simply, for parody to work, it has to plausibly mimic the original. The Sixth Circuit’s decision in this case would condition the First Amendment’s protection for parody upon a requirement that parodists explicitly say, up-front, that their work is nothing more than an elaborate fiction. But that would strip parody of the very thing that makes it function.

The Onion cannot stand idly by in the face of a ruling that threatens to disembowel a form of rhetoric that has existed for millennia, that is particularly potent in the realm of political debate, and that, purely incidentally, forms the basis of The Onion’s writers’ paychecks."

I highly recommend reading the brief[4], especially the sections

• "ARGUMENT I. Parody Functions By Tricking People Into Thinking That It Is Real",
• "ARGUMENT II. Because Parody Mimics 'The Real Thing,' It Has The Unique Capacity To Critique The Real Thing." and
• "ARGUMENT III. A Reasonable Reader Does Not Need A Disclaimer To Know That Parody Is Parody.

Those last two apply equally to government censorship and to the question of whether Wikipedia should or should not allow a parody lampooning a typical Jimmy Wales plea for donations. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ Guy Macon: Sure, but we aren't on e.g. a blog; we're on WP where additional considerations apply, and none more than BLP. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH.

@ PackMecEng: I agree that there should not be an exception. Maybe a clarification. --Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 03:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ping me. When I post a comment I watch the page for replies. BTW, it looks like you just assumed that I have stated an opinion on or posted my desired answer to the question I posted. I have not. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ Guy: No such assumptions; "not my department". FWIW, my answer specifically to your thread-opener is that your edit does not adequately address what (for reasons noted above by Aquillion and myself) is indeed a real BLP vio. Even if you identified the drug-joke wording as satire, or avoided it entirely and just linked to the material, Aquillion's point about avoiding jokes at others' expense remains, and rings true. BLP is a set of boundaries meant not to be skirted or tested, but to be given a comfortably wide berth. Happy editing -- Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 10:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the simple sentence "Does this edit address an actual BLP violation?" with no additional commentary somehow fails to "adequately address" anything. I was not aware of any new requirement mandating that I am not allowed to ask a simple question without at the same time indicating what my desired answer to the question is. You have no idea what my opinion is. I may be sitting here thinking "I sure am glad that someone addressed an edit of mine that is a clear BLP violation". I may be sitting here thinking "an obvious parody on a user talk page that makes a good point about WMF fundraising should be an exception". You don't know because I purposely did not express any opinion.

The only opinion I have expressed is that "Forbidden by BLP" and "Allowed by BLP" are acceptable and should be discussed, but the "Allowed but must be labeled as satire or parody" is stupid, destroying any value the parody might have had as a commentary on WMF fundraising while at the same time allowing a post that says a living person uses cocaine to stand. If that's the consensus (unlikely at this point), I will treat it as "not allowed."

Please concentrate on answering the question asked. not on criticizing me for asking it wrong. I didn't do anything wrong, and insisting that I did is an unwelcome distraction. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My comment at 5:06 refers to this edit i.e. the one you asked about in the thread-starter. (addendum) Ah, I see my error which caused our misunderstanding: I misread the diff (mobile browser, aging eyes) and thought it was you making the edit when it was actually Barkeep. Humble apologies for the confusion and wikistress! At long last, my answer to your thread-starting question is: yes. (end addendum) In that light I hope it is clear that I have ended up in tbe "forbidden by BLP" camp. I applaud your seeking feedback here, and wish you well. -- Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 19:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC); addendum, 21:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those last two apply equally to government censorship and to the question of whether Wikipedia should or should not allow a parody lampooning a typical Jimmy Wales plea for donations. I disagree. WP legitimately censors a wide variety of legal speech, including BLP vios. I agree with others that this is a BLP vio. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If the question is, are satires, jokes, talk, covered by BLP, the answer is BLP "applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is not a free webhost; the purpose of our site is not to arbitrarily host everything you could possibly want to say (or could legally say under the First Amendment.) Our purpose is to create an encyclopedia. That's why I started by mentioning that WP:BLPTALK contains an almost absolute exception for anything related to article content decisions - if what you're saying is reasonably related to that, you can use as much satire as you want. The problem is that your post clearly wasn't; at that point the balance shifts sharply. If you want to post yuk-yuk-yuk memes targeting a living person, or an editor here, you're free to do so on literally any other forum on the internet; but here, our balance isn't "what would the Supreme Court say about whether this is legal at all?", it is "does this support, or detract from, our mission to write an encyclopedia?" If something doesn't support it at all, then it at least needs to not detract from it at all; and memes targeting individuals, especially editors, definitely detract and distract from it. Hence WP:BLPTALK. Think of Wikipedia as something like a workplace - freedom of speech doesn't prevent you from being shown the door if you're telling off-color jokes that are distracting from the job people are supposed to be doing; because freedom of association means people have the right to set up a workplace for purpose XYZ and prohibit things that get in the way of that purpose. --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is ample room for reasonable people to disagree on this, and it's not a situation that should set any kind of precedent. That said, in my interpretation this was not a BLP violation. The preface "I think" makes it clear, even without further context, that this is not a factual claim about the named person, but a personal opinion (which in context is not sincere but an expression of satire). BLPTALK states "The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to what Wikipedia is not" (the intersection of WP:NOT and user pages is a separate issue, and a can of worms we don't need to open on this noticeboard). Again, some may disagree that saying "I think" in front of an inflammatory statement is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that it is "about themselves," but I would argue that's the fair reading. If for example a user stated on their user page, "I think Vladimir Putin is a Nazi," I would not dream of taking it down as a BLP violation, despite it being uncited, controversial, and having nothing to do with content choices. Even under a strict reading of BLP, there is no violation because any user is a definitive source for their own opinions.

Some will probably think this is too permissive, but I think it keeps BLP in line with its purpose, which is not primarily to constrain editorial discussions. The relevant policies here are WP:NOT and WP:NPA. I think Barkeep's refactoring was a totally fine response, but not because of BLP specifically. —Rutebega (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC) This argument was erroneous and I retract it. —Rutebega (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC) [reply]

No. That's not reasonable. '"I think" this is [unsourced] fact about living person' would eviscerate the BLP policy were it allowed. In particular to this case, "I think" is not even true, but a statement made in jest. So, either "I think" is false, or in another situation, it is just added words of no meaning -- you think that, so what, this is not the place for you to share what you think about BLPs. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. I see no room for "It's OK if you jump through hoop X". If it isn't a BLP violation, it doesn't need any "I think" or "(satire)" magic words. If it is a BLP violation (which is where the consensus is heading) then it needs to be removed and no disclaimer can save it. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What? So it's not a BLP vio if it's a personal opinion? That has never worked that way. Also the WP:BLPTALK section you cite is talking about someone making a claim about themselves, not their personal opinion about someone else. The relevant part of BLPTALK is 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. So even the example you gave about Putin would be considered a BLP vio. PackMecEng (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. The phrase "and not related to making content choices" is key, and goes to WP:NOT. When BLP intersects with other policies, it means we are extra stringent with them, be it NPOV in article space or NOT in userspace. Normally acceptable edits are treated as violations if they have even a whiff of diceyness. This is as it should be. Being all edgy and clever and testing its limits is antithetical to BLP, and likely more disruptive than frankly violating it. The ensuing debate and drama suck more energy than it takes to handle overt, non-edge violations. We are NOT here to play such games. -- Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 10:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're right, but I do think BLPTALK is slightly ambiguous on this question. I realized I was wrong when I read WP:BLPSELFPUB, which stipulates that a living person can be used as a self-published source about themself (including their personal views) only if [...] it does not involve claims about third parties. So, if one blogger made an inflammatory claim about another in an online post, repeating the statement (even attributed!) and citing the blog would be a BLP violation. And yes, I as an editor am not allowed to say anything I want about a living person just because it's my opinion, unless it is somehow related to making content choices. I regret the error. —Rutebega (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't an editorial decision. I specifically pointed out in my initial response how that's key. If Guy Macon had posted "hey does Jimbo Wales actually have a cocaine habit? We should look for sources" on Talk:Jimbo Wales or "people are joking about how our ads make it seem like Jimbo Wales has a cocaine habit, we should find better sources and add this" on Talk:Wikipedia, those would have been protected, assuming people accepted that it was a serious content discussion. This, though, was a random joke on a user talk page - that's not protected. We're here to write an encyclopedia; random harmless jokes and banter on user talk pages are allowed because it would be miserable to have to write an encyclopedia like a soulless robot, but once it becomes a distraction from our core mission of writing an encyclopedia, it's no longer allowed. --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious BLP violation - just because it appears to be humour doesn't remove the potential damage these sort of accusations can make - in many circumstances, accusations of drug use could cause real problems to a person. We shouldn't be making them and shouldn't be linking to them. Not everyone (either the subject or employers) will recognise this as humour, because if editors are permitted to make these sorts of comments about public persons, then this will give permission to make them about less public, or vulnerable people. BLP redlines are redlines for a reason.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something can fall short of being an actionable policy violation, while still being a bad idea. This was a bad idea. A heading like "Here's a funny satire about Jimmy Wales" would have avoided the drama. (Not that I, personally, find it particularly funny, but that's not the point.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A heading like "Here's a funny satire about Jimmy Wales" would still leave material that says that Jimmy Wales has a cocaine problem. I don't see any way a BLP violation (which appears to be where the consensus is headed) should be allowed no matter how you label it, and if this discussion finishes up the way I think it is going to finish up, I will self-revert and find some other way to mock the WMF banners. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever's going on here, I highly recommend that anyone that care about this go touch some grass and go do something more productive, like I don't know, watching a glass of water evaporate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, I agree with you. Guy, the distinction that I am making can be thought of as being like the distinction we routinely make between attributing a quote to a cited source, and saying it in Wikipedia's voice (but here, the voice is yours, rather than Wikipedia's). When you say that you think he has a drug problem, in your voice, you are making an assertion (a facetious one, but an assertion nonetheless), in your voice. When you say it's a funny satire, you are merely asserting that it's funny. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. I just changed the title on my talk page to "Totally not faked [ Citation Needed ] image of Wikipedia's fund raising banners".[5]

Should I assume that there is still a consensus against the link to https://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1287661/Think/ itself, or does that need to be discussed? If the link is allowed. How about using the words from the linked webpage as the link text -- the thing that was reverted,[6] thus triggering this discussion? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! In my opinion, it's fine the way it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Double Rainbow (viral video) page lists the video's maker as dead. He's not: https://www.youtube.com/@Hungrybear9562/videos He's still uploading videos as of a few days ago. I tried editing this recently but it got changed back. I don't wanna get into a whole thing with someone about it. Please fix it. LegalUsername (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to Double Rainbow (viral video) the maker died in 2020, sourced to the Fresno Bee. It's not unheard of for others to take up the operation of a YouTube channel. If Mr. Vasquez is still alive, he might want to tell the Fresno Bee. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I actually knew about this beforehand, huh. In 2019, he mentioned how he had videos scheduled to be released until 2034. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. 1brianm7 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in our article although on sourced to a Vasquez video. Nil Einne (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure - I am the subject of this article.

I’m requesting administrator input on whether the “Wikipedia editing” section in the article Stephen Moorer gives appropriate biographical weight under WP:BLP and WP:DUE.

The section summarizes an internal Wikipedia content dispute and a time-limited editing restriction from over a decade ago. The material is sourced to a single magazine article and does not appear to be corroborated by multiple independent reliable sources.

I first raised this question on the article Talk page and waited a week for discussion. The only response was from an administrator, who noted that such material can be excessive and that the issue ultimately turns on WP:DUE (Talk:Stephen Moorer, 20 January 2026). No further consensus developed.

Given that this concerns internal Wikipedia governance rather than my professional activities, I’m asking whether this section meets current BLP and due-weight standards for inclusion in a biography of a living person, or whether it should be revised or removed. Smatprt (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed as seen here.— Isaidnoway (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that Tommy Smith was dismissed from his role as head of jazz at the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland due to a relationship he had disclosed with a vulnerable student. There was no suggestion in any reporting of this matter that the student was vulnerable and I think the word vulnerable should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-58384-2 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this as unsupported by the source, along with the claim that Smith disclosed the relationship, which the source also does not support. Indeed the BBC article we cite itself cites the Mail on Sunday (admittedly not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards), which specifically says that the relationship was reported by a third party! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year incorrect. He was born in 1991. ~2026-59416-2 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)  Courtesy link: Josh Swickard[reply]

Is there a source for his birth date other than this assertion? I can't access his biography on the Theater on Marco website. -- Reconrabbit 20:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

he's a self-styled hack who seems to have made his abode at the far left loony bin that is hatenothope, ... he is a far left grifter who's main home is a nest of liars. diff Should it be deleted, per WP:BLPTALK? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 20:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks like a BLP violation to me. Though I suppose the page is not (yet) a CTOP, this looks disruptive. Ought this to be at AN/I? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you gone to their talk page, politely expressed your BLP concerns, and them to remove (not just strike out) the comments? I know I would be angry if someone dragged me into ANI over comments I have made regarding Alex Jones without assuning good faith and discussing them with me first. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all,

There was a very long CSD tag from a brand new editor asking that this article be deleted because of WP:BLP concerns. I untagged it because it was not in an acceptable format for a CSD deletion but I thought I would check here in case there is some truth to the request. Given the subject matter, I thought there would have been a previous discussion about this article on this noticeboard but nothing appeared when I searched the archives. You might also check out the article talk page which also touches on the subject of adult-child sexuality. You might also note that an editor who created this article was globally blocked due to concerns about child protection but this article has existed for several years now without being brought to WP:AFD so I don't know if there are any reasons to be alarmed. Thank you for any guidance you can offer on our BLP policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a BLP problem, but I do see a notability problem that, in my opinion, justifies an AFD.

What evidence of notability do we have other than the legal case Kershnar v. SUNY Fredonia?[7] That case hasn't attracted a lot of attention after a blip in 2023[8][9] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have some cover of his work. He is known for being very... contrarian, it seems. Normally I would be more reticent about putting such things in an article but the stuff he published books on and what he was called out for saying are rather similar. In any case the article was BLARed to an article that doesn't mention him so I have taken it to AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 100% with the rules but I removed a section of the LEAD that clearly creates a negative around David by stating the organization he is associated with is pseudohistorical. Where he is "guilty" by association. The LEAD is about him, there is no need to use the lead to discuss what the organization is accused of. I believe this violates NPOV. Need to know if this type of demonizing by association is allowed. --Inayity (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that calling a center known for promoting WP:FRINGE pseudoscience (intelligent design) as such is important context, and that removing this context tends to be non-neutral whitewashing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me correct the statement on your edit just for reasons of precision; what you removed from the article David Berlinski was not a statement that it was pseudohistory, but pseudoscience. When we're saying he "opposes evolution" (which we really should phrase better; he disagrees with the theory of evolution, that's not the same as being against people changing), pointing out that he's working for a promoters of an alternative theory seems of value. This is not like saying someone worked for Major Retailer, and Major Retailer also sells cattleprods to evil regimes; opposing evolution and supporting an alternate model is at the heart of what the Discovery Institute does. Whether it should be branded as pseudoscience right there is a legit question, but our general aim to not promote WP:FRINGE scientific claims makes it not an absolute no. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And Grayfell has reverted the removal (Grayfell, pinging so that you're aware of this conversation, which wasn't apparent from article talk page). I agree with the reversion, although what NatGertler says about possible language improvements also makes sense to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV position is not to offer Wikipedia's voice to any such proclaimations. Grayfell just reverts and leaves a disparaging version of Berlinski, a living human to tarnish his image. What else does it do? I am sure you want to encourage proper usage of Wikipedia. NPOV means just that. Someone can call it pseudoscience as a way of insulting someone. If they are or arent should not be in his lead, but in the lead of the organization. Of course, an atheist will like it labelled as FRINGE! Good way to deal with people you dislike. But this is Wikipedia, which should be balanced. Next we will label people we dont like as terrorists. --Inayity (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Discovery Institute is that disparaging tone not used on their lead? Explain that one to me. Where is the word a Pusdoscience organization? Is that now White Washing? With such flexiblity you open Pandora's box. Where NPOV is now Whitewashing. Richard Dawkins, but then we have different rules for him. His lead would never mention he is a bigot and an Islamophobe. So these rules are so flexible they no longer serve as rules. While an offtopic, I tried to say something negative about BLM see the reverse, no negative in their lead using Wiki rules [10] dont you see the issue? Rules mean nothing when they can be twisted with more rules. Inayity (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is the scientific consensus that the CSC promotes the pseudoscience of ID. Everything the CSC says about evolution is easily recognized as bullshit by anybody who knows a bit about the subject. They are frauds and hucksters. In such cases, Wikivoice is the correct choice. This is not comparable to the things you use as analogies, such as bigotry and Islamophobia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Why on Discovery Institute is that disparaging tone not used on their lead? Explain that one to me. Where is the word a Pusdoscience organization?" The very first sentence says The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative think tank that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design (ID). It's right there. That page hasn't changed at all during this conversation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article has sections on two living people with poor sources, eg YouTube. I was in the middle of dealing with the description of Nick Fuentes but had to stop, hence the many ref errors not related to Orwoll or Csere. I will fix those tomorrow.Doug Weller talk 18:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to two editors he has passed away but there are no sources currently. I have reverted twice so I will not be reverting again. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 19:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe these sources will do: Business Wire, Press Release from Meditech. If requested, I'll check to see if there are more sources in the following days. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues:

Reporting upon the trial NoFap vs. Aylo at Nicole Prause.

Reporting about the lawyer Stebbins at NoFap and Nicole Prause.

About the first issue: it is a civil law trial, with an accusation of crime (RICO). So, please chime in if it has to be deleted.

About the second issue: In NoFap vs. Aylo, NoFap claims that the statement about Stebbins is wrong.

1. Why she declared that? Because she would have been punished if she did not declare that.
2. Do we have a WP:RS that it is wrong? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does [11] mean the trial got dismissed? No WP:RS commented thereupon (AFAIK). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this biography and disclose a conflict of interest per WP:COI.

I posted a request on the article’s Talk page several weeks ago regarding the tone and proportionality of the “Legal troubles” section but have not yet received a response, so I am seeking independent editorial input under WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.

The current section devotes extensive narrative detail to allegations from a single incident while comparatively underweighting the case’s resolution (felony charges dropped; misdemeanor plea and sentence). I proposed condensing the section to neutral legal summary language, removing unnecessary prosecutorial detail, and foregrounding the disposition.

I would appreciate experienced editors reviewing the Talk-page thread and advising whether the proposed changes are appropriate under policy.

Article: Scott Speer

Talk-page thread: Talk:Scott Speer MrScottSpeer (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MrScottSpeer I fixed your links, it's not necessary to pipe the url into the link.

I removed the detailed information based only on primary source court records. In the future, you can draw attention to your talk page posts by using the edit request wizard to make your requests. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a pass at condensing the section — I appreciate the effort to reduce narrative detail.

I still have two BLP-related concerns and wanted to ask whether further adjustments might be appropriate:

• The phrase “trying to light his house on fire” appears to come from early reporting and reads more colloquially than legally; would it be appropriate to replace that with neutral language such as “following a domestic incident at his residence”?

• Because the arson and felony charges did not result in conviction, would policy support clarifying the disposition inline (e.g., that the felony charges were dropped and the plea was to a misdemeanor), assuming this is supported by the cited sources?

I’m trying to ensure the section reflects WP:BLP’s emphasis on precise legal language and proportional presentation of allegations and outcomes. Thank you again for looking at this. MrScottSpeer (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I slimmed down the first paragraph as "arson charges" is sufficient. I added that the arson charge was dropped as part of the plea. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to revise and condense the section — I appreciate your attention to the BLP concerns. MrScottSpeer (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the recent edits — I appreciate the work to tighten and neutralize the legal section.

I had one additional question about article structure rather than wording. Because this appears to be a single resolved legal matter within a broader career, I wondered whether WP:UNDUE might support placing it within a “Personal life” section rather than as its own top-level heading.

I wanted to ask first before suggesting anything, in case there is established guidance on how biographies typically handle this.

If helpful purely as an illustration (not a proposal I would implement myself), a possible structure could look like:

Personal life

(short biographical section)

  ↳ (existing legal paragraph unchanged)

I’m very open to editor guidance on whether that would be appropriate under policy, or whether the current structure is preferable. MrScottSpeer (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request administrator attention to this article due to continuing disruptive editing that may be considered as an attack page against a living person.

An anonymous editor is repeatedly reverting well-sourced and policy-OK content from independent, high-quality sources, including The Guardian and other major international media which cover the topic significantly. These sources clearly meet WP:RS standards, however the anonymous user removes it as “puffery” or “advertising” without justification.

That is resulting in edit warring and clear WP:POV pushing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorraine Crane (talk • contribs)

WP:PROUD. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A bigoted and comment and an unsubstantiated claim has found its way there. What can I do about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheena_Chohan Johnalexwood (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Philippe Jorion has unfortunately passed away last July. His Wikipedia entry need to be updated accordingly.

Obituary: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0015198X.2025.2580227 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-64246-0 (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Emeraldflames has claimed that the alleged incident of George Zimmerman referring to a bar owner as a "nigger-lover" should be removed due to supposedly constituting "hearsay". I think it is very clear that mentioning that it was alleged rather than factual is fine. Any other opinions on this? JPHC2003 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between revisions JPHC2003 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the police" isn't the right way to report that according to a bar owner's statement to police that something happened, which is what the edit summary claims. but [12] appears to have the police there to hear "(racial expletive) lover" the statement. But [13] has the manager hearing "a racial slur" Am I reading those sources right? I don't see a cop who has been asked to remove a customer going into another room and letting the customer exit unescorted.

Also, what is the source for transforming "(racial expletive) lover" to "nigger lover"? It's certainly plausible, but that's not enough for inclusion in a BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These sources described it as such. @Emeraldflames removed the Slate source. JPHC2003 (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That second complex.com source only reports that TMZ made the claim, and TMZ says that the manager made the claim. How does that equal "According to the police"? The Slate source implies that Zimmerman became angry at a waitress and called the bar’s manager a "nigger lover" and then the police were called -- by Zimmerman. It also clearly says that it is re-reporting what is at [14] I am seeing nothing in any source that is inconsistent with the manager making the claim, not the police. BLP sourcing is a bright line that we must not cross, no matter how we feel about the individual who is the subject of the BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki Admins: I have a conflict of interest as the subject of this article. I am requesting a review by independent editors. Statements that violate multiple policies are being made on Wikipedia

1. “She founded and coordinated(s) the nonprofit group "Media Watch", a now defunct organization which challenged(s) perceived racism, sexism, and violence in the media through education and action.[1] Media Watch: For Improving Women’s Image in the media Santa Cruz, California - is not a defunct organization. To edit this into without any evidence is not neutral editorial practice. Our small nonprofit was slapped with a recent lawsuit over copyright infringements for using images from 2007-2010 online newsletters. We had to remove many images from our website. We have an active Facebook presence, an active YouTube channel and soon a better website. We are an all-volunteer group. • Our State Charity Number- 108203718, • State Organization Number- 1645372000, • Federal Employer ID Number- 77-0226869 https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/search-for-tax-exempt-organizations All is verifiable online.

2. The use of the word “perceived” racism, sexism and violence appears pejorative.

3. On June 24, 1971, she claims she was gang raped at knifepoint in Morningside Park on her way to a modeling assignment.

4. It is implied that I haven't been arrested I am sharing references and guess you can't see photos of me getting arrested right?

The phrase “claimed to have been gang raped” violates the Biographies of Living Persons policy by introducing editorial skepticism not present in the sources. Given the historical legal context of rape prosecutions in NYC in 1971, the wording is misleading and implies doubt about the subject’s credibility. Reliable sources describe the allegation and subsequent trial factually; therefore, neutral language such as “reported,” “testified,” or “alleged in court” should be used instead. Unless a reliable source explicitly disputes the allegation, the current phrasing constitutes undue editorialization and should be revised. Historical context matters and Wikipedia must reflect it. In 1971 NYC rape prosecutions required corroborating witnesses even with physical evidence which the hospital had. Rape was a word rarely uttered in polite company, no hotlines, no support groups. Zip. Using the word “claimed” without context misleads readers into assuming my allegation lacks merit, rather than acknowledging: Structural legal barriers, The standards of witnesses at the time. This is not opinion -this is documented legal history. Records from 1971 are difficult to produce especially in juvenile court, I have attached my response from NYC police in a pdf, I have Eileen Ford discussing my gang rape at knifepoint in daylight on a cassette tape transcript an attached pdf. I have written details of this rape in two published chapters of books as well. This page is often attacked by sock puppets(?) or editors who dislike our work. I don’t know but the page gets smaller and now there is a request to delete it. Thank you all for your hard work. I deeply respect and appreciate Wikipedia. Sincerely, Ann J Simonton In regard to #3 you can't download pdfs so: Ann Simonton File # 06PL0400 LBF# 2006-PL-0400

A June 1982 taped Interview I did with Eileen Ford in NYC

My intention to meet with Eileen Ford was to request she give her new models more details about the various subway lines and how to use them. In 1971 she insisted to me that her models must take subways as she wants us on time for all jobs and interviews. Street traffic was too slow.

Ann-"I guess it was hard for my booker to deal with that kind of thing-- but-- um, I always wanted to mention to you after being in New York for 2 months I went up to Columbia University for a booking-- I was never informed of how bad that area was and---"

Eileen F- "I happen to know that. . oddly enough." 

Ann-"What do you mean 'proffered' charges?"

Ann-"Yes."
Eileen F- "Well that's proffering charges.  And one of them was very young."

Eileen F- "That means you've been robbed."

Eileen F- "The clients really don't go up to Columbia anymore--I don't think," she laughs.

Ann-"Yes, I was in that park when it happened."

Eileen F- "Oh? that's funny. We went to Columbia and-- we were never raped."  

In regard #4-First Arrest was at Diablo Nuclear Power Plant Sept 21 1981-Not sure how to prove this one. Arresting officers sprained my wrist as they carried my weight by a folded wrist, as I thought I should go limp. The media had left and it was dark. The man before me was drug on asphalt by his feet and they bloodied his face. He was next to be as we were being handcuffed. Nearly 500 women were arrested and held for 4 days in an asbestos exposed gymnasium and did a fashion show one night. I molded a wig out of the white wonder bread given to us for food that women tossed. Twice arrested at two State Beach Parks for taking my shirt off. I was part of the Cross Your Heart Support Network and our first attempts to get arrested didn’t work as there is no statute against women removing their shirts in the City of Santa Cruz. Seacliff State Beach Park and Natural Bridges State park July 1983 Arrested at Ms. Nude for pouring the blood of raped women on entry way after I read from the book Our Blood by Andrea Dworkin. Image belowhttps://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/07/24/While-protesters-outside-chanted-Grade-meat-not-women-a/4437427867200/ 5-7th arrests The first arrested for joining Nikki Craft as she got arrested at a liquor store earlier in 1982. Then I was arrested twice one right after the other—for destroying property when we symbolically tore up a Hustler Magazine due the extreme violence in the magazine. We are pro nudity and sexuality and anti-censorship- we call for corporate responsibility for the distribution and production of violent sexual images that have been found to increase violence against women. We want education and clear understanding of the impact of such sexual violence. This article outlines all arrests making the second arrest my 7th arrest. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 128, Number 126, 27 May 1984 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19840527.1.17&srpos=10&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-Ann+Simonton+arrested-------

8th Arrested for blocking traffic at UCSC during protest and a peaceful sleep-in at McHenry library against Apartheid in South Africa. April 30th,

9th arrest was 1985 Miss Behavin arrested while wearing a Meat swimsuit made from skirt -steak for littering by pouring blood of raped women on entry way of Miss California Pageant June 24, 1985 watch arrest on You Tube “I Am Miss America” scroll to 44 seconds for arrest. Link- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0viD7RFWJt0&list=FLAN7hCwmhWNVc0eDR9_Xfbw

10th arrest was for blocking traffic on Tax Day when President Reagan bombed Libya. April 15th 1986 Images of myself with blood on my hand. Maybe 25 of us were arrested.

11th Arrest was Myth California San Diego arrested as soon as I arrived in my elaborate costume of being inside a cornflakes box for having littered a rose on the sidewalk from my bouquet of roses, imitating what Miss Americas wore for years on front of Kellogg’s Corn Flake boxes. I had met with police prior to our event and knowing I was the lead organizer of the first protest in San Diego of the Miss California contest they got me out of the way right away. Many discriminatory arrests ended in a lawsuit establishing an infringement on our first amendment right that we won.

Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 133, Number 35, 9 February 1989- Available on UCR California Digital Collection online. Enter in the search “Ann Simonton+Arrested”

Many more near arrests or hoping to be arrested with police not bothering. All were in Santa Cruz except for San Diego and Diablo Canyon in SL Obispo. All arrests were misdemeanors- escaped an attempt to charge me with a felony for inciting a riot in 1984 when I helped organize men to jump onstage during Miss California’s final moments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annjsimonton (talk • contribs) 08:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Some observations:
  1. Please be more concise. It makes it so much easier for the volunteers on this noticeboard to help you.
  2. I have removed the claim that Media Watch is defunct as it was not supported by the cited source
  3. I have removed "claims" from the description of your rape: the source says in its own voice that this happened, it does not attribute it as a claim to Ann Simonton and nor should we.
  4. I do not see where our article implies that you have not been arrested; so far as I can see it says nothing about any arrests. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Ferguson - a temporary account is repeatedly inserting a date of birth. The date is poorly referenced. I've tried to explain about the policies regarding DOB for BLP, but the behaviour is persistent. pgbrown (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary account has been repeatedly trying to remove the history of student political activities from our article on Allison Jaynes (currently a scientist and no longer politically active as far as I know). Those activities are not the main reason for notability of the article and are mentioned only in passing but they are properly sourced and are needed to explain the links to the article from Free speech zone, 2002 North Carolina House of Representatives election, 2004 North Carolina House of Representatives election, and North Carolina's 59th House district; without this content, those links would likely be interpreted as being about someone else with the same name. It's also possibly relevant to note that the political activities were not in a direction that is likely to endanger the subject's employment under the current government (beyond making that point, I don't think their alignment is relevant). More eyes and more opinions both welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s one primary source (election results from the Board of Elections); if there’s no secondary coverage in a reliable source, I don’t think it’s due for a BLP.

the other source mentions her participation in a free speech protest, but doesn’t say anything about the libertarian party, so that part of the sentence is OR. Rainsage (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your rewrite looks ok to me. Despite referring to libertarianism rather than the capital-L party with the same name, I think it adequately explains the presence of her name as a candidate on those election pages. I don't think we need to mention the candidacies explicitly in her article, unless there is significantly more to say about them (with sources) than the bare election records. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Holtz passed away 1/31/2026 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-69693-0 (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although it has been confirmed that Holz is in hospice care, reliable sources have not yet confirmed his death. Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This source refutes online rumors that Holz has died. Cullen328 (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article have been a tug of war of edit betweem the right and the left. The right want it to be unbias, but the left always edit to be far left propaganda tool. Wikipedia should ban these bias editing account. All of the article of political figure should be handled by unbias professional writer. Because now wikipedia is being used as propaganda, a political weapon.

The bias include the wording that are deragatory, false accusation(it can get nick to be jailed if true), and defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-71252-5 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get professional writers on WP, you get Wikipedians, hopefully trying to do their best to summarize WP:RS independent of, but about, Nick Fuentes. That is the goal of that article on this website. You can suggest article improvements at Talk:Nick Fuentes, but you need to be specific and bring WP-good sources. Saying "The right want it to be unbias, but the left always edit to be far left propaganda tool" is just a waste of time. And per your own logic, you should be blocked for writing it. Comment on content, not the contributors. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be nice if people learned to use the word "bias" correctly. and "biased" - Walter Ego 19:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:All your bias are belong to us   --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Sisson (influencer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Briefly appeared once before, here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive367#Harry_J._Sisson. There is a lot of BLP-dubious stuff here about citizenship, stupid twitter nonsense, and maybe other things; could use a look by people experienced with that kind of thing. --JBL (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Earl Anthony Wayne page has been subject to numerous revisions today due to his appearance in an uncorroborated email released with the Epstein files. The email in question features a single individual with no clear connection to Mr. Wayne making numerous character-assassinating accusations without proof. The revisions do not include any other sources for the new section that extensively attacks Mr. Wayne's character, and it does not appear like any other proof of these statements exists. Does the new Epstein Association section of Mr. Wayne's page violate the biography of living persons policy? It seems like it is contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced, which should be removed immediately and without discussion. The email being used as a source was released by the US Department of Justice, but it is unreliable without corroboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-71312-8 (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the allegations for now and protected the article. The article reads like it was written by a PR firm. If secondary sourcing emerges for the allegations, there will be no policy-based reason to exclude them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations in the email are utterly absurd: anyone posting such drivel (in relation to anyone, not just Wayne) should probably be indef blocked immediately. It is clear that the Epstein files are full of nonsense, along with more verifiable content, and nobody should be citing them at all unless the specific matter is discussed in depth in secondary reliable sources. The Wayne bio has been semi-protected, but no doubt we'll see more of the same in relation to other individuals. There really isn't much we can do beyond keeping our eyes open, and making it clear that such WP:BLP violations will not be tolerated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a similar situation at Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway? recent addition --JBL (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't say so. That article only uses secondary sources to cover the details. The most significant claim actually relates to his wife, and we actually have an article Relationship of Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway, and Jeffrey Epstein which seems to have many secondary sources and the sources predate the email release. The details in Haakon's article might need to be reduced but it doesn't seem that similar since it seems to have been widely covered whereas I still only see one secondary source about Wayne and I'm not convinced it's reliable. I think the details are also fairly different, Wayne's case involves an extremely serious allegation I think only mentioned in one or a few emails sent by one person whereas at least for Mette-Marit, it seems part of it comes from emails she seems to have sent herself. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Efron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) would benefit from additional eyes - there's been repeated additions of unsourced and poorly sourced personal details. 01:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Isn't this mostly one recent editor. Have you tried talking to them about their editing? Fences&Windows 05:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rape accusations at Bent Flyvbjerg. Edit warring, lack of reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This report concerns a biography of a living person.

The article currently contains a standalone section titled “Epstein connection.” The existence of a dedicated section for this material gives it disproportionate prominence relative to the subject’s overall biography.

Per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, isolated or brief mentions in sources should not be elevated to a full section where this risks implying significance beyond what reliable sources explicitly state. In this case, the cited sources describe a short, discontinued email exchange and explicitly state there was no meeting, no ongoing relationship, and no collaboration.

The current structure (a standalone section with a suggestive title) risks improper framing by association rather than neutral summarization.

Requested remedy is not deletion but restructuring in line with BLP policy: • Remove the standalone section heading. • Integrate the information into an appropriate neutral section. • Reduce to a brief, factual summary reflecting what sources explicitly say. • Avoid interpretive or suggestive language.

Proposed neutral wording (example only):

“In 2026, media outlets referenced previously released email correspondence involving Jeffrey Epstein; Tchoumi has stated that she never met Epstein and that the correspondence was brief and professional, ending shortly thereafter because she felt uncomfortable.”

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_Tchoumitcheva

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenia_Tchoumitcheva&diff=prev&oldid=1336450692 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-75379-3 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just ook it out - if someone really wants to include it, then the suggested approach seems reasonable, but doesn't look WP:DUE to me. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to remove it as well. According to the source - some emails, he corrected her spelling, she cut it off. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]