Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:




    Zaynab Mohamed

    [edit]

    I and other WP:MN users have reverted several edits by anonymous IP users inserting off-topic and controversial content to the Zaynab Mohamed BLP. The BLP doesn't have many edits so you can easily see the controversial edits in the history. The anonymous user(s) are not engaging on the talk page or offering any other engagement. How can a BLP get protection so only registered users can edit to prevent whatever this campaign is? And is it possible to report the IPs? I don't want to keep reverting these changes. Pingnova (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe try WP:RPP, best forum for repeated ongoing anon BLP edits. JFHJr (㊟) 21:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That board declined to change the page protection. I suppose we just keep reverting until RPP feels like it's disruptive enough? Pingnova (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated deletion/targeting of Dhruva Kumar page

    [edit]

    Hello Administrators,

    I would like to bring to your attention that the article Dhruva Kumar has been repeatedly deleted and/or targeted in what appears to be a pattern of bad faith editing.

    The page has been created with reliable information and citations, but despite this, it keeps getting deleted again and again. This does not seem to be a routine enforcement of policy, but rather a case of malicious targeting of a particular biography subject. I request that administrators review the deletion history and associated diffs for this page.

    Request: Kindly investigate whether this repeated deletion amounts to harassment or disruptive editing. If appropriate, please consider protecting the page temporarily to prevent further malicious deletions while the notability and sourcing issues can be properly discussed. I am willing to improve the article further with high-quality references, but need protection against repeated bad-faith deletion.

    Thank you for your time and guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technogem85 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For page protection, please post a request at WP:RPP. Otherwise, volunteers here at BLPN will be glad to watch the page. JFHJr (㊟) 21:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to ask other editors with more experience to take a look, I see this [1] and all I see is an attack article, and the article itself kind of seems like a thinly veiled attack article, but the when I skim it reads it seems like "here are a bunch of random facts about this random person, oh he says a bunch of stuff on social media that upsets people" and I'm seeing badly formatted sources and primary sources and I think it needs some attention. Denaar (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I cleaned up some of the sources. From what I can see; he ran for a political position in 2024 and received 1% of the vote per [2] after receiving a lot of negative coverage. Someone redirected the name to the election article, which makes sense if the individual is non-notable, but most likely needs a discussion first? Denaar (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A good forum to suggest a redirect is WP:Articles for deletion/Dhruva Kumar. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no bad faith editing here. This person clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and there is no other plausible claim of notability. Saying foolish things on social media does not count, because then a billion people would be notable. Including me. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Eduard Verhagen

    [edit]

    Hi, the article for Eduard Verhagen obviously deals with some extremely controversial subject matter (child euthanasia). Some of this information is not supported by inline citations. Also, his work and its reception is pretty much the entirety of the article. He's the department head of pediatrics at a university, so I'm assuming his career has more to it than this? Anyways, I'd appreciate more eyes this article in a general sense. It hasn't changed much since its creation in 2005. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Greg Hayes (audio engineer)

    [edit]

    There's a deletion discussion that might interest participants on this page regarding whether a living person (audio engineer) who has won a Grammy and an Emmy qualifies as notable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg_Hayes (audio engineer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucemyboy1212 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    National Lampoon, Inc.

    [edit]
    • Disclosure: My name is Kevin Frakes and this BLP request involves me
    • Page: National Lampoon, Inc.
    • Contested Content: "Since 2002, the company has overhauled its corporate infrastructure several times, with three former CEOs — Dan Laikin, Tim Durham, and Kevin Frakes — being convicted of financial crimes related to the company. As of 2024, National Lampoon, Inc. appears to be moribund." (in the intro)
    • Citation: Uncited
    • Context: The content and circumstances is consistent with a former employee I was involved in litigation with. The case is over and the judge sided with us, but the angry ex-employee has (for years) been posting this type of thing online on Wikipedia and other websites. I have never committed financial crimes, I have never been convicted of any financial crimes and I have never been charged with any financial crimes.
    • Policies violated: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME

    Ksf207 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it is worth, I was unable to find any evidence of Kevin Frakes being convicted of a crime, and there was no mention of it in the body of the article. As such, I've removed that portion. Lulfas (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Shooting of Charlie Kirk

    [edit]

    Can someone hide this edit?--Trade (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Nthep (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please hide this as well--Trade (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nthep:--Trade (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trade: For the future, revdel requests generally shouldn't take place on highly visible public noticeboards. Emailing a recently active admin through this tool tends to be a better alternative. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem." ?? Did i miss something? Trade (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trade: So I understand how you came to the conclusion you did. I think that maybe that message should be rewritten to reflect the social norms of the project. What I was basing my advice off of was WP:REVDELREQUEST. I understand why BLPN would say link to the material you're discussing, but if something is actually defamatory, it probably shouldn't be given more visibility on a public noticeboard. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyhow, it's a useful tool so i think i'm just gonna bookmark it. Thanks Trade (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry @Clovermoss, this was partially me. @Trade pinged me on my Talk but I'm offline on weekdays and wasn't able to be prompt Star Mississippi 03:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Star Mississippi, no need to blame yourself. We're all human. I also think this is more the fault of poor instructions. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Header#Revdel requests hoping to make them better. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ilhan Omar

    [edit]

    Is the Washington Free Beacon an acceptable source for this BLP? [3] Thanks Doug Weller talk 08:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't use the WFB. Here's a better source for that quote, though it's still only a middling source. striking per Hemiauchenia's comment FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Washington Free Beacon is generally reliable from 2019 onwards per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources based on a recent RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Shooting of Charlie Kirk 1

    [edit]

    WP:BLPCRIME editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime --Trade (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What person? What text is a problem? Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    could you explain why the video is problematic?@TarnishedPath:--Trade (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In the talkpage of the article I was referring to the still image commons:File:FBI released image of a person of interest sought in connection with the killing of Charlie Kirk.jpg as that is the image linked at the top of the discussion.
    An argument could be made for removal of the video too, but it wouldn't be quite as strong as an argument for removal of the still image. TarnishedPathtalk 11:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Entry for Spencer Cox - governor of Utah. The last line is patently false.

    [edit]

    The last line of the Wikipedia entry for Utah governor Spencer cost currently states that he came out as gay on live television on September 11, 2025. This is untrue. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1F80:3120:9936:DED2:2A67:3896 (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It has already been removed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    BLPCRIME as it relates to redirects

    [edit]

    The redirect Decarlos Brown Jr. was allowed to remain because "BLPCRIME doesn't apply to redirects". Does that mean Tyler Robinson can be a redirect to Killing of Charlie Kirk? There's lots of coverage of it in RS: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] TurboSuperA+[talk] 16:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that Tyler Robinson is a disambiguation page, and per BLPCRIME that we're not naming him in the article itself yet, no, a redirect makes no sense since we'd not list them at the disamb page. Masem (t) 16:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    and per BLPCRIME that we're not naming him in the article itself yet
    Please see: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 8#Decarlos Brown Jr. where the consensus is that BLPCRIME doesn't apply to redirects and that just because a person is not named in the article that doesn't mean a redirect can't exist as it is a valid search term. Another editor said the redirect should stay because the person is mentioned in a lot of articles.
    Am I hallucinating a contradiction here? TurboSuperA+[talk] 16:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this specific case, you would need to create a disambiguated redirect because of the existing disambiguation page, which would not help at all in searching at this point.
    There probably should be a larger discussion of BLPCRIME, naming, and redirects overall, but this specific case, it makes no sense specifically because of the existing disambig page Masem (t) 16:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tyler James Robinson is not an existing article, redirect or disambiguation page. Should it be created? TurboSuperA+[talk] 08:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect created. TurboSuperA+[talk] 08:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know much about redirect policy, but this seems to be a recurring issue with WP:BLPCRIME. A new discussion started yesterday, and already there are apparently five proposals under discussion.
    Blepbob (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Killing of Charlie Kirk 2

    [edit]
    Well intentioned but misguided. Please use extant Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk_and_urgent_WP:BLPCRIME_violations Star Mississippi 16:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    FYI, please go here:

    ^ uninvolved admin eyes needed for a contentious EXTREME public visibility article renaming and consensus review. Likely to get time sensitive hour over hour.

    Please consider camping this overall for the next week: Killing of Charlie Kirk -- already pushing 5 million views just past 24 hours existence and our highest traffic page beside the parent right now. You will see the latency and wild edit conflicts.

    (cross posting for eyes per WP:ANI suggestion.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Very Polite Person (talk • contribs) 17:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Talk:Tyler Robinson

    [edit]

    My new discussion topic on the Talk:Tyler Robinson article, with timestamp 12:26, September 12, 2025, was reverted inappropriately, ignoring reasons identified on my talk page. My talk topic entry was for a request to add an entry to the associated article. While BLP policy is widely relevant to the matter, the Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators is a specific relevant policy and stands as an exception. There's also no clear reason why my contribution should have been deleted in addition to reversion according to Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction. Please restore my new topic to the talk page or explain why this new Talk Topic is disallowed. .digamma (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You'll need an admin to review that, so here's my take. One of those policies (WP:PERP) relates to the creation of individual pages about otherwise unremarkable people. Even then, it says that content should be aimed at the event in the first instance. WP:BLPCRIME is what you should be looking at. Saying that a named individual is suspected of a crime is a BLP violation, unless there's a strong consensus otherwise (and there are numerous discussions yielding a lack of consensus). The relevant policy part is, "... suggests the person has committed, is suspected of, is a person of interest, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime". As a BLP violation, the removal and revision deletion is appropriate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Elizabeth Berkley

    [edit]

    Can we get someone to finally settle the dragged out debate regarding her birthday. It has been going on since 2008 and despite dozens of sources being provided to confirm her birthday as 1972 (including her personal pages) some admins keep blindly reverting the article without engaging in Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusbloom (talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What I see from the talk page is multiple sections where this has been discussed with multiple participants including admins & multiple sources provided some of which say or imply it's 1974 some of which say or imply it's 1972 and a bunch of OR (WP:CALC from an age at date is generally okay, speculation on graduation times etc not so much). Some people say she has said it's 1972 some people say she said it's 1974. There's also some poor reasoning (e.g. when it comes to DoBs we don't generally consider personal pages or marketing as necessarily reliable other than to satisfy WP:BLPDOB indication they don't mind concerns) Under these conditions and since no source seems to have commented on the conflicting information, just leaving out any year is perfectly fine. Definitely I don't see anything remotely approaching WP:consensus on the talk page so removing the info until and unless it's established is perfectly reasonably. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Durga Prasad Subedi

    [edit]

    Durga Prasad Subedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    New article created about the husband of the new/current interim Prime Minister of Nepal. I moved it to draft space because it needs work. It is mostly about the person's connection to a hijacking in the 70s. More editors should take a look at it. Thank you. TurboSuperA+[talk] 12:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been moved to Article space again. TurboSuperA+[talk] 12:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ghulam Ahmad Bilnour

    [edit]

    There is an ongoing dispute on Talk:Ghulam Ahmad Bilour regarding a narrow, non-contentious biographical statement about the subject’s tribal identity, specifically, that his family originally migrated to Peshawar long ago from Bajaur and belongs to the Kakazai Pashtun tribe. The family has reportedly been settled in the inner city of Peshawar for several generations. This information is well-sourced through a combination of interviews, archived sources, and regional media (including a CRSS interview and a tribal welfare trust). However, the opposing editor (User:Sutyarashi) is rejecting all of these sources by labeling them as "obscure" or "not reliable," even though they meet the standards outlined in WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SELFPUB for limited, self-referential biographical content, and the claim itself is not contentious under WP:BLP. A structured, policy-aligned source analysis table has been provided to clarify each citation’s compliance with WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Outside input is requested to help resolve the issue in line with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. An RFC has been posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McKhan (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk

    [edit]
    WP:NAC: WP:ANI is the forum for user behavior concerns. JFHJr (㊟) 03:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Today M.Karelin used acornyms to name the accused (seemingly) in order to bypass Special:AbuseFilter/1382 violation several times. As the RFC to name the accused is still ongoing and have yet to be concluded it is still not allowed to name the accused anywhere at the time of the edit

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk&diff=prev&oldid=1311239246#About_his_orientation_and_alleged_trans_partner

    Worth noting that earlier Very Polite Person left a comment suggesting that who who bypass the filter (at the time it was in effect) presumably would be blocked --Trade (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User behavior should be reported at WP:ANI. Here, volunteers are mostly non-admin and will simply keep an eye on things (some are more hands-on than others). But if you want someone to address behaviors or sanctions, the correct forum is ANI. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 16:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Neil Mercer

    [edit]

    Neil Mercer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Neil Mercer's birthdate is wrongly given as 1946, when it should be 1948.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.196.228 (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Neil Mercer's birthdate seems to be provided to you by Google, not Wikipedia (see Knowledge Graph (Google) and Template:HD/GKG). We have no control over that. Please contact them by using the 'feedback' link (or similar) next to the displayed results. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an issue, not on the English Wikipedia's end, but Google. However, the date given by Google appears to be coming from Mercer's Wikidata entry, which cites the 1946 DOB to this [14] VIAF entry. However, this El Pais interview with him[15] lists his birthdate as 1948. It also lists his birthplace as Lancashire, which User:Neil Mercer (VRT verified) tried to add to the article some years ago.[16]. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 09:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't see any year of birth at Neil Mercer and the article hasn't been edited since 2023. If you are referring to something seen on Google's Answer Box/Featured Snippet or somewhere else you will need to take that up with whoever is responsible for whatever it is you are seeing. E.g. for Google try using the feedback button and reporting the information that is correct to them. There is nothing we can do about it when our article does not contain the information. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As GreenLipstickLesbian helpfully points out, the result is probably influenced by Wikidata, and ultimately Virtual International Authority File. Someone can probably update Wikidata. I can't even find their help desk. But I do also recommend using Google's feedback button. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It might not be wikidata. See this noticeboard's talkpage for my advice re cached results; it goes for both text and images. Make non-zero lede edits, the bigger the better (move most to early life or add significant text). Purge between steps. And give Google about a day to recache it. JFHJr (㊟) 20:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree, but there's been no edits to the article at all for over 2 years, and as far as I can tell has never supplied a date of birth. The problem lies elsewhere. It's worth mentioning that Wikidata has now been amended, but other points raised in this thread stand. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Do reality TV plot summaries need independent citations, or is the work itself sufficient?

    [edit]

    I had approved this DYK nomination for Building the Band, and it was re-approved by Rjjiii. It then was later rejected by Dclemens1971 on the basis that several sections have no citations and thus a BLP violation. Also tagging AirshipJungleman29 because they closed the DYK nomination. The nominator, Launchballer, was under the impression that reality shows fall under WP:PLOTSOURCE. Which is correct? Do plot summaries for reality TV shows require in-line citations to an external source? This would also impact Slag Wars: The Next Destroyer, which is now a GA. That was passed by Pi.1415926535, who didn't require in-line citations per Launchballer's argumentation re PLOTSUMMARY, but did at the time recommend that they be added.-- 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure BLPN is the right place, but yes, reality shows do need citations, mostly because they turn into databases of fancruft and intricate detail if left alone. References do not only verify information, but also provide the necessary basis to evaluate due and undue weight. Without references, you get huge tables of all the tiny permutations that occur in these shows. Building the Band is only a small example; a quick look around finds the far worse Bigg Boss (Malayalam TV series) season 6, which has 100kb+ of cruft and bloat. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My sense is that WP:BLP outweighs WP:PLOTSOURCE. Reality shows may not really be "reality" in the sense that they are highly staged, but they feature real humans, performing as themselves, not as characters, who are living at the time of production and thus should be expected to meet BLP standards of verifiability. PLOTSOURCE explicitly refers to fiction, which reality TV is not. (But the closure of the Building the Band nom was also justified in that it had been more than 60 days since creation and it had not been promoted; such nominations may be closed at the discretion of any reviewer.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Particularly for reality TV shows that are not based on clear objective results (that is, shows like Survivor or Big Brother where there is a lot of reading between the lines on motivations not said on screen), then are details show summary should absolutely have citations to avoid editor interpretation of how the contestants behaved. Arguably this would require a lot of trimming if these reality show articles but that's likely for the best. (in contrast when you have a show like The Amazing Race when it only depends on objective observations, that's far less a problem si ce there is no room for interpretation) Masem (t) 16:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on the show, but ones in which the participants use their own names etc and is presented as themselves not a character it clearly falls under BLP in a way that regular productions with actors playing characters do not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this feedback. I'll keep this in mind if I encounter more reality show articles.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A hook was proposed for two articles, and my review focused on the other article, 3Quency. I think the 3Quency article meets WP:BLPSOURCE. It has inline citations throughout the prose. The television show is only the source there for a table showing which songs were performed during which round. Rjjiii (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the tradeoff making noms multi post hoc, and I did say at Airship's talk page that I planned on taking the two articles through GA, especially given that there are no other interesting hooks for 3Quency. Not anytime soon though.--Launchballer 13:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck! I think there is a backlog drive next month, Rjjiii (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP violation in article Talk

    [edit]

    I regret occupying the community's time with a "self report", however, I believe this will be a less onerous exercise than the status quo.

    Very_Polite_Person regularly remonstrates me for what he contends are BLP violations I make in reference to believers in flying saucers in Talk pages. I'm bringing the most recent instance here in hope of obtaining some wider input by which I might perfect my language. In a RSN discussion of Nick Pope, VPP described[17] the following statement I made as "too far and outright WP:BLP violations" and "grossly inappropriate behavior".

    In Ancient Aliens season 15, episode 9, Pope discusses "shapeshifters" --- beings that may appear in human form but are actually space aliens and can't be distinguished from other humans. Since space aliens aren't real, this suggests Mr Pope might be unable to distinguish humans from non-human objects which, according to the CONLERN theory, [95] is an ability essentially all humans attain within 90 days of birth. We should be cautious assigning reliability for any fact whatsoever—no matter how basic—to a person who may have trouble doing something like telling the difference between humans and non-human objects, as every single fact is more complex than that.

    Accurately representing the beliefs of a person discussing "shapeshifters" for a RSN discussion is difficult and if this needs to be refactored, I'm ready to do so. Is there a finer way I can discuss Mr Pope without violating BLP? Chetsford (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've begun compiling the OP's violations of BLP here ahead of (hopefully not) going toward dispute resolution or further if required. Please read. This is ongoing negative behavior and would be enough for any editor--any--to pick up warnings and escalating sanctions.
    They have been repeatedly chastised for this up to the level of @Jimbo Wales:. CC @J Milburn:, a veteran Administrator who severely chastised Chetsford here (note--Chetsford heavily archived their talk page just now):
    Three people (namely: me, Very Polite Person, and Ldm1954) have now pointed out fairly unambiguously that your comments about Svozil (and possibly others) are abusive, insulting, uncivil, or similar. I encourage you to drop it. As you may or may not know, there are plenty of administrators ready to block for perceived violations of the BLP policy, which includes abusive comments about individuals in discussions on talk pages or similar. If you don't drop it, there's every chance that someone will escalate this to one of the noticeboards. By all means argue for the deletion of the article if that's what you think is appropriate. But do so without sideswipes at the subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
    That OP is an Administrator makes this worse. I will keep compiling evidence in that BLP issues link above as needed; that is just the literal tip of the iceberg. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a bigger issue than the more limited question I've posed here. I'll let you keep up with working on your scandal sheet but, in the meantime, I think we can dispose of this limited question more immediately with the aid of some feedback here. The discussion is fresh and if my comments would benefit from refactoring I can do so now. Chetsford (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cannot comment on a BLP without speculating about their mental health, then you should not be talking about them at all. What you have written is absolutely unacceptable, even if you think that their beliefs are wrong - perfectly sane people believe in demons or aliens - even if they are demonstratably wrong that does indicate that they have some sort of disorder.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I did not intend to speculate on Pope's mental health, merely note that Pope's discussion that it may not be possible to distinguish humans from space aliens seems to establish that he is not a RS for basic facts about human beings. That said, the fact you infer this was a comment on his mental health, however, tells me that I should have been more precise in my language and I will immediately edit my comment accordingly. This is precisely the feedback I was seeking and I thank you for it. Chetsford (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that they simply "struck out" but left the BLP violations and insinuations that the BLP subject is apparently biologically defective visible: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1311555421 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are directly citing the original text in the thread. Doing more than striking out would still keep the text you find problematic there until you delete your own comments which quote it (and violate WP:TALK#REPLIED in the process). Just ping me when you've done that and I can oblige as needed. Chetsford (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's denigrating and inappropriate. (I also don't buy your argument about him having trouble "telling the difference between humans and non-human objects." Consider that many of us, including me and perhaps including you, sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between video of actual living human beings and deepfakes / other AI video of "non-human objects" that look and sound like living human beings. It's not because we're generally unable to distinguish between human beings and non-human entities. It's because AI is now creating non-human entities that look/sound so much like living human beings. He has a fringe belief, but that doesn't imply any general inability to tell the difference between human beings and non-human entities.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with others that while Chetsford may do good work in keeping out nonsense, they need to cool it with their commentary on living persons. Also the commentary on Pope is IMO just silly and does a real disservice to the cause they are advancing. While I cannot speak for the people who did the research they are advancing, it seems they are referring to a low level ability to distinguish someone who is human from someone who isn't. There is absolutely zero reason to think Pope lacks this. In fact what seems to be happening here is Pope has this and recognises that to all intents and purposes, these people seem to be human such that he & everyone else thinks they are. However he believes that they're shapeshifters who emulate humans. Such an idea may be complete nonsense but it's refers to a much higher level of thought that the studies Chetsford cited are assessing. In other words it demonstrates that Pope has gone way beyond the basic level of infant thinking & learning so isn't by itself something of mockery or derision. Making the point in that way suggests Chetsford just doesn't understanding anything and definitely does not help to demonstrate Pope is wrong. (To be clear, Pope is clearly wrong, but not for the reason Chetsford said.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Pinged to the discussion above and saw this.) Chetsford, I would also add that everything following "this suggests Mr Pope" could have just been "is not not a WP:RS" or "is not a subject matter expert", or something to that effect. That direct approach seems like it would be more effective as well. Speculation about a living person goes against WP:GRAPEVINE, which is usually applied to articles but technically applies to all namespaces. All that said, I appreciate the work you do trying to clean up ufology and ufology-adjacent articles. Hopefully your fans on Twitter/Reddit move on to something else soon. Very Polite Person, it is likely a bad idea to share that list until you are ready to go to arbcom or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or whatever. Most people are going to view it as harassment to maintain a public dossier on another editor's worst edits. Since you've already linked it on this noticeboard, it would make sense to go ahead and transition over to dispute resolution (or whatever your plan was) as soon as possible, Rjjiii (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Byron Mann – re-added incorrect DOB/age

    [edit]

    The article Byron Mann has had an incorrect DOB/age re-added, sourced only to a 2015 GoErie feature that stated “48” in 2015. That is factually incorrect.

    Per WP:BLP, contentious personal details about living people that are unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. Per WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information, dates of birth should not be included unless supported by high-quality, widely published sources.

    Requesting admin/editor oversight to (a) confirm DOB/age should remain omitted, (b) prevent use of GoErie for DOB sourcing, and (c) consider page protection if re-adds continue.

    Diffs: [add the diff link from history where age was re-added]. Byronmann (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Most sources that give a DOB say 13 August 1967, see e.g. this. You should not be editing your article per WP:AUTOBIO. GiantSnowman 21:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was previously discussed here [18]; pinging @Locke Cole as a potentially intersted party.
    Now for a couple other things. For starters, I've reported the account to UAA as a safeguard against impersonation.
    Next, @GiantSnowman, lots of sites will have pulled that from old revisions of the Mann article. As to the specific example you've found, as per WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, There is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information.
    As to accuracy: the DOB was originally added, unsourced, to the article by an IP in 2010[19]. Two months later, Byron Mann (the editor) created an account & removed it[20], only to be immediately reverted by an admin because the edit broke formatting. (Hi @Fram) It's not actually that implausible that a local newspaper would, when moving quickly, consult Wikipedia for a DOB or other basic biographical details; making a typo on an current events article, then watching several newspapers coincidentally make the exact same typo teaches you that well enough. Can we find any pre-2010 sources? If not... I mean, a DOB isn't that important and there's been a genuine dispute over it for the better part of fifteen years.
    As another interesting note, the IP who added the original DOB also added another, what appears to be fictious DOB [21] to a different actor article around the same time; the info was removed by an editor claiming to be the actor[22] and, after they were reverted, was eventually removed here[23]. They also added what is likely a fictious DOB to another article, here[24]. I don't think the IP was making these up, I think they might have been looking at non-RS or UGC, and weren't overly critical with what they added. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see my reply to this issue back when it first popped up a few weeks ago on the article talk page here. The only thing I'll add is that since the subject is vehemently denying their listed age (which I determined to be correct based on two independent sources), it's possible those sources used the incorrect date of birth in our article as their source for his age (resulting in a case of citogenesis).
    The subject (if they are who they claim they are) should reach out to those two sources and ask them to issue a retraction or correct their online articles, otherwise I imagine this will just happen repeatedly.
    Speaking of the article talk page, the subject started three new talk page threads in addition to this BLP discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Locke Cole Out of curiosity, are the two independent sources you added in this edit[25] what you're referring to? [26][27] The ones that both start with An honor student, actor Byron Mann had earned his law degree and passed the California bar exam only to be told by a fellow lawyer that he needed to get out of the field. Instead of being upset, Mann said he felt liberated.?
    I agree that if there is an issue with the source, then contacting the news sites to get a retraction would be a good step. I will also say that the real Mr. Mann has said that the birthday listed on the Wikipedia page for so many years is wrong (UPROXX 20: Byron Mann’s Birthday Is Not August 13, Internet), so make what you want of that. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there was a different source and the age reported was different (because the source was published in a different year), but calculated back to the same year +/-1, which is why I felt comfortable restoring just the approximate age. I'll have to see if I can find the second source as I don't think I saved it. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you do, lmk.
    I was reminded of this conversation because Byronmann has been unblocked by the VRT agent after confirming his identity. Seeing that he's been trying to remove this as incorrect since 2010, what's your opinion now on keeping it in? Personally, I suspect that the 1968 age may be a little off; you tend to pass your bar exam right around the age of 25. Mann passed his in 1993, which is a point in favour of the '68 date. However, we also know from RSs that he took a sabbatical; given how much work he did during that time, it's not unreasonable to think that was a multiyear affair, which does nudge the birthdate towards being a little earlier in the 1960s. This can't be added to the article, so right now we know only 3 things.
    1. an IP with a less-than-steller batting average said that Mann's birthday was on X day; afaict this is the earliest this claim has been made
    2. Mann disputes that, and has disputed both on and off Wikipedia that for fifteen years
    3. The only outside sources we've been able to find that put his birthday around that time were published after the Wikipedia article's birthday went up.
    Opinions? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed it from the article for now, but I do agree that everything seems to line up correctly with the bar exam date. I know he was in Street Fighter, I'm wondering if any print publication from around that time had his birthdate or at least his age as of that period; it would precede our publication of the DOB by that IP and be significantly more reliable because of that. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Byronmann, GiantSnowman, and GreenLipstickLesbian: Alright, spent over an hour reading hits on Google News, let's see what we can find:
    Date Publication "Age" [a] {{birth based on age as of date}} URL [b] Quote
    2015-12-29 Press of Atlantic City 48 1966 or 1967 (age 57–58) [28] [29] Although at 48 he's an international name, Mann says he wishes he had spent more time on relationships and less on work.
    2018-07-05 South China Morning Post | PostMag 50 1967 or 1968 (age 57–58) [30] Mann, 50, who grew up in Kowloon, is a solid actor who has been a presence in many films, including Cold War (2012), The Man with the Iron Fists (2012) and The Big Short (2015), and a recurring character in such American television series as Arrow (2012-2017), Hell on Wheels (2015-2016), The Expanse (2017) and Altered Carbon (2018).
    2018-07-11 Entertainment Weekly 50 1967 or 1968 (age 57–58) [31] Born and raised in Hong Kong, the 50-year-old actor returns home for the summer action film, starring as Inspector Wu, the police officer at the bottom of the titular skyscraper attempting to apprehend Johnson’s Will Sawyer, who has climbed his way into the burning structure.
    2025-06-02 The Korea Herald 58 1966 or 1967 (age 58–59) [32] The Hong Kong-born, 58-year-old Hollywood veteran thought someone had their wires crossed.

    Notes

    1. ^ As of the publication, hence the quotes
    2. ^ If paywalled or unavailable, second link is a functioning Wayback Machine link
    That's one of the original sources from our current article, as well as three additional sources from various other dates/sources. Obviously the big problem with all of these is that they're sources after the incorrect date was added into our article, so it's possible these secondary sources are helping create a citogenesis situation. My intention is to use The Wikipedia Library's access to Newspapers.com and go spelunking through old print articles from the 90's and 2000's and see if I can't find something that predates the incorrect date of birth addition. Hopefully I'll have time this weekend to do that.
    In the meantime, if anyone else is watching this and wants to take a look too, feel free to add to the table above any sources/details you find. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently {{birth based on age as of dates}} is a functional template and takes two sets of data to try and narrow it down further. Here's the output using the South China Morning Post | PostMag and Korea Herald values:
    1966 or 1967 (age 58–59) —Locke Cole • t • c 05:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Amanda Eliasch

    [edit]

    Dear Wikipedia Editors,

    Amanda Eliasch demands the immediate and permanent deletion of the "Political Views" section on her Wikipedia page, which contains false, libellous remarks attributing political opinions to her. As an apolitical artist, photographer, poet, and film director, known for works like The Gun, the Cake and the Butterfly and Peccadillos, Ms. Eliasch has never expressed such views. These claims, sourced from a 2019 BuzzFeed News article (https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/farage-ritz-tea-party), falsely allege anti-Muslim statements and endorsements of figures like Enoch Powell. These are untrue; her blog was hacked in 2017, and unauthorized posts were made in her name. She promptly deleted the blog upon regaining access.

    This content, added without her approval, misrepresents her apolitical identity and causes reputational harm. Legal action is being pursued against those responsible. Wikipedia must remove this section to prevent further defamation and ensure no similar content is reinstated.

    Thank you for your immediate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinnDirector (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Buzzfeed is not a great source. Toast1454TC 23:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toast1454: This is an article from Buzzfeed News, which was distinct from their main site before it was shut down in 2023. See WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS: "There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News operated separately from BuzzFeed..." Bridget (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Making legal threats is not a good idea, and is very likely to get you blocked. I suggest you retract that statement. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 01:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You will of course take whatever legal action you see fit. However, per WP:No legal threats, you can not edit Wikipedia at the same time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that an IP at Talk:Amanda_Eliasch#Disputed_Content_in_Political_Views_Section states "a hacked blog falsely attributed controversial statements to Eliasch", which is interesting if we can source it, or if we can source that Eliasch said so. In that hypothetical situation, we can then look at WP:PROPORTION. Actually, we can do that now if we want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We should look at these things rather than blowing off this complaint for its legal-threat tone: WP:DOLT. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree re NLT being a serious, fundamental problem here. It's now at ANI for consideration. JFHJr (㊟) 23:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. JFHJr (㊟) 00:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And In 2019, she commented on the blog entry that "I don't feel that way anymore." Wickham, Alex; Stefano, Mark Di (21 May 2019). "New Video Shows Nigel Farage Courting Fringe Right-Wing Figures At A Private Tea Party Hosted At The Ritz". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 16 October 2024. is rather incompatible with a hacking claim isn't it? JFHJr (㊟) 23:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Katharine Hsu

    [edit]

    I work with Katharine Hsu who would like this Wikipedia page to be removed. It shares her secondary current home location, which she'd prefer to be removed at the very least, and states that her primary position is at Weill Cornell Medicine, which is somewhat misleading. She is affiliated as a Professor of Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and serves as Director of the MD-PhD program, but her primary position is at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Her research (the strongest reason she is a notable person) is available on Pubmed.gov and on the institutional websites, so there is not a strong need for her to have her own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.139.41.85 (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the location as WP:UNDUE and without context. It didn't even say what 15 years the subject lived there, and why it was relevant to the whole picture, without any other locations mentioned. Otherwise, I'll ping @David Eppstein and @Russ Woodroofe for an opinion as to academic notability and whether this is an appropriate candidate for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as a marginal or non-notable academic. JFHJr (㊟) 20:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime OP IP, please ask Katharine to contact WP:VRT herself, not through a friend. Things will go much more smoothly if she does that, to confirm her identity and her wishes. JFHJr (㊟) 20:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to avoid questions of academic notability for medical researchers because I don't have a clear picture of the type or level of citations needed to achieve WP:PROF#C1 notability. But I don't see anything in the article beyond her well-cited research that contributes to our academic notability standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At a quick glance, I see enough citations that I tend to believe in notability; but I think it's also marginal enough to respect a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. It would be preferable to clean up anything that is so out-of-date as to cause distress, rather than going for deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that was quick feedback! Thank you both @David Eppstein and @Russ Woodroofe. My 2¢ is this person is probably going to meet WP:ACADEMIC at a traditional AFD, without confirmation via VRT for a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which might go a long way in a short time. Otherwise, I've done some normal content and grammatical editing to remove or reword the objected undue/outdated info. More eyes and hands are welcome. Further steps are the WP:ONUS of the proponent/s for change: by the subject herself, at VRT. JFHJr (㊟) 21:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for the edits thus far. Article removal is still preferred. Please note she is still both the program director of the MD-PhD program and an active faculty at Memorial Sloan Kettering so the past tense can be updated to present.
    As a physician-scientist, she does not have the bandwidth to chime in herself, but if it's helpful, I'm the program manager of the MD-PhD program (Eileen Torres) and can verify my identity and her wishes however is needed. 2600:1017:A8FD:62DE:E00E:621E:13F9:F064 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced/defamatory content at Rokoko (company)

    [edit]
    WP:NAC: Wrong forum. This is not a noticeboard for living companies, with living employees. Unless someone is named textually. This is not a BLPN issue. Try the article talkpage first, and then WP:POVN if there's no consensus at talk. JFHJr (㊟) 02:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Hello, I’d like to request review of recent edits at Rokoko (company) that appear to violate the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. A particular user has repeatedly added a section containing serious allegations (e.g. that the company is a shell company, that it steals user data, etc.). These claims are not supported by any reliable, independent sources and appear to stem from an ongoing personal/legal dispute between that individual and the company. I initially reverted these edits, but I’ve stopped doing so to avoid edit warring. Instead, I’m asking here for uninvolved editors to review the situation and determine the best course of action. Problematic diffs: 

    – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rokoko_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1287475839
– https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rokoko_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1287476733
– https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rokoko_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1287477245
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rokoko_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1287520144
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rokoko_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1309399212

    Because these are contentious legal accusations against a living company and its staff, I believe they fall under BLP’s requirement that such material be removed immediately if not supported by reliable sources. Could experienced editors please take a look? Thank you. Sharleenbrando123 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Vinod Sekhar

    [edit]

    Some phrasing in Vinod Sekhar is editorial, opinionated, and biased, with controversial information given undue prominence contradicts WP:BLP. Some is conclusive, non-neutral, and poorly sourced information, and possibly against WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

    This article gives weight to negative claims about the individual featuring prominently, which may breach WP:LIBEL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damianerico (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor asks "I quoted an article. Can you point me to the policy that provides that if you quote text from a reliable source that it’s a violation of policy if that reliable source has a deadname?"

    [edit]

    See User talk:PerseusMeredith#Annunciation Catholic Church shooting Admins can see the post in questrion.[33] Doug Weller talk 11:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:DEADNAME. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 14:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    \but they say they did hot deadname him, just quoted source tha named him. Anther editor has responded to that in detail. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DEADNAME still covers that. Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming...except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name[.] —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1312189831"