Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

---

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Thomas Heywood (organist)

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.

---

Likely autobiographical, and potentially overstated in nature.

A short summary is below:

The article asserts that Heywood is "the first Australian musician in history to live as a professional concert organist", yet cites few sources (reputable) or otherwise? The cited sources are newspaper/magazine articles about one of Heywood's concerts in a concert hall, town hall, cathedral, and festival respectively. Additionally the "Concert Organ International website" listed as the first External link, is run either by himself or his wife. While this isn't listed as a source for the article itself, it seems that the entire article is likely used more as a free autobiographical advertisement, as opposed to a biography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Organister (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

"the first Australian musician in history to live as a professional concert organist"

If that claim is unsourced, then it can safely be removed. If you think the article could use some copy editing for improvement, and/or additional sources, then go ahead. As for the external link, "Concert Organ International", it can safely be removed as well per WP:ELNO #5 - web pages that primarily exist to sell products - which is what it looks like to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article. I'm putting away my cleaver now. But I removed promotional content that wasn't nailed down, or that misused a source. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I've done a WP:PROD here. Itchy cleaver after further searching. JFHJr (㊟) 22:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Taylor Lorenz

Recently there was an RfC on whether or not to include Taylor Lorenz's comments about the murder of Brian Thompson in her article. The RfC was closed by Chetsford. The closing comment stated, in part, there is a consensus to exclude mention of Taylor Lorenz's comments on Brian Thompson's murder.

There was an uptick in coverage about Lorenz after she gave a CNN interview, which led to the suggestion her comments be added once again.

Ultimately, the quote was added. To me, this looks like it's ignoring the RfC, but I am not sure if that's the case, or how to proceed. Iknowyoureadog (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Should be removed until a new RfC is held or a very high consensus is reached. 206.83.103.251 (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Consensus can change. The RfC was four months ago (and in that RfC, I !voted to exclude the comments since they were clearly UNDUE at the time). With this April CNN interview, Lorenz mentioned that she saw the biggest audience growth that [she has] ever seen due to her comments/posts about the killing, which I find noteworthy as it demonstrates the effect her comments have had on her journalism career. All I did was make a bold edit; you're free to remove my recent addition--I don't mind. I'm waffling a bit between inclusion and exclusion anyway. Feel free to participate in the discussion on the talk page, which you already know about since you linked to it here. Some1 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Consensus can change but with BLPs you should make sure consensus is for inclusion before making a bold edit. 206.83.103.251 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I’m watching the conversation play out. I posted here because, as I said, I’m not sure what the procedure is post RfC. I have no problems with bold edits. i know you're a dog (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

We still have to remember that it is a BLP. Being bold is not an excuse to go off like a bull in a china shop. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

What’s that in reference to? i know you're a dog (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page I didn't see any new discussion related to the content. Certainly consensus can change and if there has been new coverage of the topic it may be worth revisiting. That said, absent some talk page discussion why the content should now be included, specifically why things are different now vs a few months back, I would say the material should be excluded based on the previous closing. I'm not saying the burden to include is high, only that more/new evidence than is presented at the article/article talk (which is currently zero evidence) is needed to disregard the prior close. Springee (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Springee hasn't had their coffee yet. See Talk:Taylor Lorenz#Luigi Mangione comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Matthew Miller (spokesperson)

Hi editors, I'm starting this discussion as part of my work for Beutler Ink on behalf of our client Vianovo. I've disclosed my conflict of interest on the Matthew Miller Talk page, and my User page. I have recently been engaged in a discussion about the Controversies heading in the Matthew Miller (spokesperson) article with RCSCott91, which resulted in RCSCott91 suggesting an RfC be opened about changing the heading. Were that the only issue with the section I would likely agree, however, I think the issues with the section go beyond the heading and rise to the level of BLP/N.

In short, here is my thinking:

• The Controversies heading is inherently non-neutral and violates WP:STRUCTURE. Though just an essay, I think WP:NOCRIT also supports changing/removing the heading
• The first paragraph contains WP:OR as with the phrasing Miller has repeatedly been accused or rebuked by journalists for laughing about inappropriate topics while communicating the U.S. government's public policy positions during the Gaza war. – This is not directly supported by appropriate sourcing and is WP:SYNTH
• The first paragraph cites a headline as a source in the sentence Miller's laughter prompted Al Jazeera to run the following headline: "US official laughs at question on invading other countries". WP:HEADLINE states that headlines are not reliable, and so removal is appropriate.
  • The headline is also not accurate. There was no question asked. Miller's laughter clearly came in response to a joke made by a reporter in the press pool, he was not the only person to laugh, and the video attached to the story confirms this. This seems like a means of pushing a particular point of view about Miller in conflict with BLP and NPOV
• In the second paragraph, regarding antisemitic comments by Francesca Albanese, the phrase Miller did not offer any examples or evidence to back up this accusation is directly refuted by the Common Dreams source itself Miller added, pointing to comments that Francesca Albanese—the U.N. special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories—"made in December that appeared to justify the attacks of October 7."
  • I am also not sure that Common Dreams is an appropriate source for controversial information about living people. There isn't a formal consensus on it, but one editor in a past discussion said it was unreliable.
  • To be clear, Miller noted in a State Department briefing – given on the same day the Common Dreams story was published – the comments he was referring to, which were reported by and described as antisemitic by the Times of Israel and other outlets in December 2022

I think the section as a whole is there to push a particular viewpoint about Miller on a politically charged issue and lacks balance, as there are many reports by reliable sources of Miller (CNN, NYT, Reuters, to name a few) being critical of Israel. When 50% of the article is about this criticism which has suspect sourcing and phrasing, I think that demonstrates a significant NPOV and BLP issue.

In the interest of brevity I will stop there. I hope editors will review the entire section, not just what I have described here, and am happy to answer any questions or offer suggestions for alternate language if desired. Thanks for taking a look and weighing in here or on the article's Talk page! Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Detention of Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez

I'm unsure of how to proceed with this or how notable of an event it is so I wanted to bring it here for additional opinions. I would imagine the two named individuals who were also in the car with him should not be named per WP:BLPCRIME.

Awshort (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I removed the material under BLPCRIME shortly after posting here, which was disputed by the original editor (pinging @Iknowyoureadog:) who added the names of two people that were arrested with Lopez-Gomez. Relevant talk page discussion is here, but I advised them to take it to BLPN if they felt the names, or material should be included prior to restoration.

Their reasoning of Three people were arrested because of a law that has been blocked by the federal government from enforcement. You removed that. If I read the article now, I would think it is only one person. That is in no way, shape, or form preserving my hard work IF BLPCRIME even applied - which it does not. Please work to restore that information. as well as WP:CRIME allows for the inclusion, and their edit summary of re-add additional arrests given lack of effort to WP:PRESERVE. Added additional language to ensure it is clear they should not have been arrested, and ensure it is in compliance with WP:CRIME. when they restored show that they may not understand policy since it seems to be a relatively new account registered last month.

Awshort (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Once again, please read WP:PRESERVE. You deleted the entire section and a section titled SB 4-C and clearly made zero effort to preserve it. It is endlessly frustrating to have other editors wholesale delete my hard work, though you might not know that as, based on your edit history, it looks like all you do in mainspace is delete other's work. I went ahead and restored the information without the other two names. i know you're a dog (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Harald Malmgren

I've recently significantly rewritten the article on Harald Malmgren. Though he's deceased, he's recently deceased enough that this is still probably covered by BLP. This article has been subject of extensive canvassing by UFO enthusiasts on X and Reddit over the last 24 hours.

The previous versions extensively cited non-RS, WP:PRIMARY, no sources at all, or used extensive WP:SYNTH to assign exaggerated claims to Malmgren unsupported by the sources cited. Malmgren was the subject of a UFO fantasy film that released last night that claimed he saved the world from nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis (based on his own assertions) and that he went for a ride in a starship from Venus or something (it's hard to follow). If people would like to keep their eyes on this article, I have no doubt it will be inundated by UFO WP:SPAs. Chetsford (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This subject is probably outside the scope of WP:BPD because this policy's postmortem coverage applies particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. Even though I don't think this is necessarily the applicable case or correct forum, I'll be happy to temporarily watch, and I'm certain others will also. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chetsford, please take care not to call it vandalism when it's perhaps something else like WP:UNDUE or WP:RESUME etc. Vandalism usually pretty looks different. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 05:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It's vandalism as per WP:NOBLANK. Potentially deprecatory, but WP:RS cited, content was wholesale removed without explanation or any edit summary. Chetsford (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith

There’s currently a discussion at Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#fixing bio to match MOS:FIRSTBIO guidelines concerning if the first sentence of the lead conforms to MOS:FIRSTBIO. Experienced editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 06:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Jeanette Wilson

Hello editors, I am writing to request the immediate review of the article on Jeanette Wilson, which contains numerous factual inaccuracies and appears to have been influenced by a coordinated defamation effort. I am a spiritual teacher, healer, medium, TV personality, and author with a longstanding professional career in New Zealand and the UK . The current article includes serious errors and false claims:

• I did not become a medium after my grandfather died (he passed away when I was six).
• I am not anti-vaccine; I support good science and responsible health dialogue.
• I do not promote unproven supplements or offer dangerous COVID-19 advice.
• My sessions do not involve spirit possession or humming,> I have never claimed to cure arthritis.
• I have never spoken to John of God, he is not my mentor.
• The timeline of events is inaccurate (the 20/20 episode aired before the TV3 series).
• There is no mention of my SY TV series Spirit Medium;Jeanette Wilson
• Several of the quotes attributed to me were taken not from a public event but from a private session Susan Gerbic posing as Joanne Nielson, tried to set up a sting. Susan thought she was joining me on an event where I passed on messages but she came in on a session where people meditated and connected with their own loved one. Frustrated by this she was determined to get me for something else as it was 2am in the morning (all of this is on the video I can send you)

Additionally, quotes from known skeptics Vicki Hyde and Michael Marshall are present in the article. In the video I have, it is said that Michael Marshall had contacted all my UK events to stop them happening. The individuals who edited the page are part of a group who were planning and discussing actions to damage my reputation and sabotage my public events in the UK. This undermines the neutrality of the article and calls into question the integrity of its creation.

I respectfully request this article be nominated for deletion or, at the very least, be heavily edited under neutral oversight. I am happy to provide my video evidence and supporting documentation through appropriate channels. Thank you for reviewing this. Jeanette Wilson

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.96.209 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for deletion, per the longstanding precedent that "... subjects may request deletion of their articles through Articles for deletion or requesting that a member of the Volunteer Response Team do so. Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is currently or was an elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests". Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanette Wilson. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Huda Fakhreddine

Huda Fakhreddine was just created ten days ago; various IPs, including one registered to the subject's place of employment, and one newly-registered editor have been deleting portions of the "Activism" section over the past 24 hours or so with hardly any discussion. An admin should determine if the content is to be removed as WP:UNDUE.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The content in question has been removed as a result of WP:RFPP.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Sam White (political adviser)

It seems quite likely that someone very close to this individual (a former political advisor who works in communications) is editing his Wikipedia page so that it resembles a glowingly positive LinkedIn page.

It's clearly not written from a neutral point of view. I had a go at cleaning it up a few months ago (and should be clear, I don't work in politics, nor do I have any connection or opinion of this person) but a couple of weeks back, someone else has rewritten the whole piece to include Sam White's greatest hits and deleted the well-sourced references (from The Times) to him being sacked by Starmer without any explanation. It also now includes his apparent "reputation for not being afraid to give tough advice", amongst other gems.

I'm sure I'm putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, but my naive sense is that he, or someone close to him, might be editing this.

I'd be grateful for any steer on what is and isn't appropriate from an admin or anyone who has more knowledge on these things. Obviously we can't stop people from editing their own pages to put in useful information, but this just reads as a badly written glow piece in a magazine at the moment. I've tried to tweak it in the past but it just seems like that will be undone again.

Leodensians (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for Article Assessment: Sumukha

Hi everyone!

I’m looking for feedback on this article about Sumukha, particularly regarding notability and improvements needed for it to be indexed or moved to mainspace. I’ve tried to follow Wikipedia’s standards and would appreciate any suggestions from more experienced editors. Also, I've made several changes to improve the article in line with the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. Requesting review and removal of the BLP notice if appropriate, as well.

Thanks in advance! Doglady95 (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I replied to your BLP notice question on the article talk page. As for the rest, since the article was already accepted at WP:AfC about 2 weeks ago [1] and moved to main space. I'm going to assume it's probably good enough as is to survive as is without being taken to WP:AfD. While it could be improved, there's probably nothing needed for it to be indexed other than waiting for it to be WP:patrolled. Wikipedia:New pages patrol generally has a reasonable back log so it might take several weeks. That said, are you aware of WP:RS/PS and in particular WP:NEWSORGINDIA and have you checked carefully that none of your sources are a problem? There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force that might be a good guide. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Greetings. I've marked the page as patrolled. The rest is up to search engine indexing. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

BC Fourteen

This page is autobiographical by user 'Faktmagik' and is written with a biased tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icon of Destruction (talk • contribs) 14:31, April 26, 2025 (UTC)

See: BC Fourteen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icon of Destruction (talk • contribs) 14:32, April 26, 2025 (UTC)

Dallas Wiens

Dallas Wiens died from cardiac failure near the end of September 2024 - his family have contributed announcements and even a funeral stream about it. The only problem is that all our sources are blacklisted and can't be used, including from Facebook and GoFundMe. I don't want the page to pretend that he's alive and aging, but what can be done when Wikipedia doesn't let us use it? BOTTO _(T•C) 00:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I suppose the question is: can we use the Facebook announcement from his widow as a source, as there are no second-party ones? BOTTO _(T•C) 00:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be best if a member of the family get in contact with a local newspaper from where he was last living, and then have them publish an obituary, which then can be used. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: I reached out to a handful of publications that covered his benchmarks over the years, to see if they'd cover his death. The question is: are we able to use Facebook as a source in the meantime, until someone acknowledges his death? BOTTO _(T•C) 13:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Facebook since it is WP:UGC. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Social media posts cannot be used to make claims about other people (per point 2 of WP:ABOUTSELF).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thank you for your input. You've always been an administrator I've always respected, so when I hear your input, I know the course is set. He's dead, but no third-party/non-blacklisted sources say that, so should we return the page to the current tense, as if he's alive? I hate considering Facebook, which is why I've never done that, but I know coverage of him stopped several years ago. And, for some reason, other pages like Beta Test (film) remain intact, despite being built upon Facebook - not to invoke whataboutism. BOTTO _(T•C) 19:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Our policies are imperfect (both in creation and application) but they're all we have to help protect against disinformation. Some reliable source will ultimately report the death given the scientific interest in the subject.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

PROD tag with defamatory claims

A PROD rationale on the article Derek Myers seems to include uncited defamatory content about his career and a news publication run by Myers. However, the claim of not meeting WP:GNG is sufficient to keep the tag up. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I would just modify the PROD tag to remove the claims, but I suppose taking it to AfD would probably be a good alternative. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the prod. That article is in very bad shape, but I don't have the time to address it right now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Fern Sutherland

She was with her partner for 14 years, not married. The citation to Instagram (I think it's footnote 2?) that suggests she got married is actually about someone else's wedding. That becomes clear with other contextual clues and the page of the person she tagged. Citation 3 makes it clear she was with her partner for 14 years before the relationship ended; there are no references to marriage or divorce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.203.84 (talk • contribs) 21:41, April 26, 2025 (UTC)

I undid the edits which added the questionable information. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Christopher Marte

Hi, User:Thenightaway seems to be repeatedly inserting obviously false information on the Christopher Marte page. They are suggesting falsely that Marte is against congestion pricing, then linking to an article which does not support this conclusion. Could folks please have a look and weigh in? Thank you. Ni Hao Man (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghislaine Maxwell

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

---

I have found, and removed, several violations in this BLP of a convicted criminal with significant international media prominence. However, I have also found that several relatives are mentioned multiple times within the article text. Sanitising the article to comply with the prohibition against mentioning or discussing relatives of BLPs, and particularly high profile criminals, will require a major effort to almost entirely rewrite the article. IMHO the article is at signigicant risk of inadvertently libelling several univolved people. Thus I think cleanup is quite urgent. Please also see my post at Talk:Ghislaine_Maxwell#Multiple_BLP_violations? Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Her parents Robert Maxwell (who was also a criminal) and Elisabeth Maxwell are both now dead? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Even if BLP applied to her parents (which it does not, because her mother died more than a decade ago and her father died more than 30 years ago), I do not see how naming her (otherwise notable!) parents is in any way a BLP violation. It is not libellous to name Maxwell's family members in her biography. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Naming notable relatives as being her relatives is obviously not a BLP vio. It's quite absurd to insinuate that it is. Every single person you removed has their own article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Also some of these people have been dead for actual decades. BLP vio - what? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein

I'm concerned by repeated edits at Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein that seem to run afoul of our BLP guidelines. Take a look. Specifically there is content alleging that the Uihleins engaged in illegal activities. I don't see evidence of an investigation or conviction and this seems to violate WP:BLPCRIME. There is also a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR happening and the article could use some more eyes. Marquardtika (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

What about that do you think violates BLPCRIME? We don't need an official investigation or conviction if there is good coverage, although depending on the circumstances we could choose not to cover it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to this tag you added[2] but that does appear to be what the subjects are most covered for... Perhaps a stand alone Political activities of Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein page is due, especially as Uline is more or less a stand alone page for their business interests. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The heart of WP:BLPCRIME states For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—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. It is hard to cast Dick and Liz as "not public figures"; their political activities have generated much attention. As such, this doesn't apply to them. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

We have in the article that the Uline business was engaged in an illegal scheme, and that "Elizabeth would have been aware of the program." The source is a Guardian article saying that an anonymous source said she was aware of the (allegedly illegal) program. How is that not a BLP issue? Just because she's a public figure doesn't mean we should be able to use anonymous sources to say that she was aware of illegality and did nothing about it. Not to mention that this is really about the Uline business, not about Elizabeth personally. Marquardtika (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there is no BLP issue, just that the specific invocation of BLPCRIME doesn't work well here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, it sounds like BLPCRIME doesn't fit this particular scenario. But WP:PUBLICFIGURE does, and we may be dealing with "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out...." Marquardtika (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Its hard to believe that the Guardian would run a feature on it and nobody else would pick it up... Were you really unable to find other sources when you went looking? Or did you never look? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

We are not using an anonymous source, we are using the Guardian. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Right, the Guardian says that an anonymous source said that Elizabeth Uihlein was aware of the illegal scheme. The only other source I could find for this contention is Raw Story, which doesn't seem usable since it is rated "generally unreliable for factual reporting." The Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein article as well as the Uline article have been heavily edited by an WP:SPA who is adding a lot of unencylopedic seeming things like screen grabs of columns Elizabeth writes for the company newsletter (which looks like WP:OR) and things like a random long pull quote from a Politico article (see Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein#Views and history. It's all giving college essay vibes. And there is clearly some confusion about what content goes at the personal article vs. the company article. Marquardtika (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I see a number of other sources reporting on the story such as[3][4]. It does seem to make more sense to put this in the broader context though, this is not the first time issues in that area have come up[5][6][7] etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I will note that I got here via a user talk message, but I have also been a regular editor to the page and talk page participant in the past and had noticed activity on my watchlist but had been too busy to investigate. I think there are some pretty real issues on that article in its current state. I don't know why we're tracking every donation they've made that's gotten new coverage - it strikes me as UNDUE, especially when combined with the context needed to make the donations make sense. I don't think the diff linked with the wording In December of 2024 and February of 2025, the Guardian reported details of an allegedly well established scheme wherein Uline was bringing workers from their warehouses in Mexico to work shifts at their warehouses in the U.S without work visas and stated that Elizabeth would have been aware of the program. is a BLP violation. We're stating in-line who is alleging it (the Guardian) and not saying it was a crime just that it (allegedly) happened. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Sam Ruddock

This article contains sensitive information on an ongoing investigation. The person in the article is a vulnerable person. His family ask that the information about his missing status is removed. This issue is ongoing and IS highly sensitive, despite what the people correcting it on the ‘talk’ might say. He is vulnerable, many of the details concerning this are NOT being made public by us, his family. And we would ask again for privacy and consideration and not media links from news articles who are NOT party to all the details. This is an ongoing situation and we are incredibly distressed by the insistent inclusion of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Targaryen1993 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Direct link to referenced talk page section: [8] fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Following up by pointing out for clarity that the article is Sam Ruddock. I've dropped a note on the editor's talk page linking to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help and highlighting the VRT e-mail address there. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Raegan Revord

Disagreement on which pronouns to use for this 17 year old, please join Talk:Raegan_Revord#Raegan_is_not_non-binary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Alan Schatzberg

Alan Schatzberg Some text on this page is outdated or provides an inaccurate and incomplete viewpoint:

Dr. Schatzberg is no longer the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Psychiatric Research, he is now Emeritus Editor.

The page currently states: "As the APA president in 2009–10, he was identified as the principal investigator on a federal study into the drug mifepristone for use as an antidepressant being developed by Corcept Therapeutics, a company Schatzberg had created and in which he had several million dollars' equity.[5]"

However, as documented in this article and other online sources (https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/pn.43.16.0006), Stanford acquired a patent on mifepristone in the 1990s following NIMH-funded research, for which Schatzberg was principal investigator, on the biology of psychotic depression. The patent was then licensed to Corcept. Before the patent was issued, Dr. Schatzberg did not have any financial interest in this drug. Once he was aware he was going to have a financial interest in mifepristone, he disclosed it.

The page should be updated to reflect the facts around this topic in a more complete and balanced way. Past editors of the page have removed it completely, but others have added it back repeatedly without full or accurate information. This same phrase is on the American Psychiatric Association's page and is incomplete/inaccurate. The timeline of his APA presidency occurred after the news reports about the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4302:5940:D01D:47CB:CA17:953 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Artist names capitalized or not ?

Hello, in which case artist names should be capitalized or should not ? Taking note that the AC/DC page was using the band name all capitalized, and actually working on the CHINCHILLA artist page, which is also an all-capitalized band name (see: https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/64595/chinchilla/ ), I therefore capitalized the CHINCHILLA band name. But, my work was reverted and flagged as "possible BLP". I'd like to have more point of views about that. I also opened a discussion on the artist page. What is considered BLP in this case ? Cyrix Sòng (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This is an article title dispute, rather than a BLP issue. Please see our policy on Article titles. Particularly, how do reliable sources refer to this artist? Isaidnoway (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

See also MOS:BIOEXCEPT. Note that capitalising AC/DC, as two initialisms, is standard English formatting whereas rendering CHINCHILLA in allcaps is stylisation, so you cannot really use the forme argue about how we treat the latter. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your replies. It makes sense. I saw the same policy apply for general Capitalization so I could take a decision accordingly. Cyrix Sòng (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Kyler Murray

I have been doing a WP:DOB cleanup sourced to birth indexes per WP:BLPPRIMARY and past discussion on the noticeboard.[9][10] I keep getting reverted by Yankees10 at Kyler Murray, and they have made no attempt to fix the underlying issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I found a non-primary listing of his birth date (an ESPN database) and added that. I hope that clears the issue. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Zhang Ziyi

Zhang Ziyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The three gate content in controversy section has no relieble soures, it's all tabloid sources. Should it be here? I removed them but got reverted. SimonWan00 (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the Chinese sources cited for the other controversies, but the "Donation Gate" section is sourced to the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal (albeit judging by its relative newness and lack of Wikipedia article, not the most significant academic journal going). It might still be the case that there's excessive focus given to these controversies in the article (I'm always suspicious of "controversies" sections, especially when the controversies are such weak sauce as her co-star said that somebody seduced him and some people in the media speculated that he was talking about her) but there are absolutely non-tabloid sources which would ordinarily be presumed reliable cited in these sections. (From what little I know of China News Service, I wouldn't expect that it would normally be questionable because it's a tabloid gossip rag either. I wouldn't want to see it cited for e.g. Chinese politics without awareness that it's a state-controlled source, but is it generally unreliable for celebrity news?) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that Wall Street Journal is relieble soures. The other ones, China News Service is one of leading news website in China and sina.com and sohu.com also are big internet company, but the source cited in this article belongs to Entertainment gossip section on those websites. So I think they're a bit of tabloid vibes. The reliability of the content is uncertain for me. SimonWan00 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Senior U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton

Senior U.S. District Judge [Claude M. Hilton]

Someone added a profanity to his description.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6012:600:5D4E:3D46:F875:2ED7:48C4 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Appears as though the vandalism referenced has been removed. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 02:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

FYI, in the future, you can remove content like that yourself, without having to report it here, having said that, thank you for reporting it. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E and WP:1E

I've started a discussion about the relation between WP:BLP1E and WP:1E at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#BLP1E is split into two pages. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Is a self description for a dating site trivial if noted in many reliable sources?

In Talk:Julian Assange#OkCupid Profile a self description for a dating site which has been quoted in many reliable sources. There has been an effort to remove it as trivial and even though it is quite short to trim bits that editors don't like about it. Is it trivial information that should not be in an encyclopaedia? NadVolum (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

This kind of does look like trivia in context to me. Like it seems to come down to the question of whether it's encyclopedic knowledge that Julian Assange was a little bit cringe 19 years ago. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

We have had our say, it is time for fresh eyes to have a look. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but was this directed to me? Because I've made one comment here and one comment at Julian Assange that was in response to seeing this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

All of us, lets not litigate this in two places. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It strikes me as entirely trivial. The article is already very long – the current revision, without the OKCupid text, is 13,372 words/83kB! Why does it matter that he used the pseudonym Harry Harrison? What does that tell the reader? At best, maybe the fact that he self-described as a "passionate, and often pig headed activist intellectual" who was "directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project" might be worth mentioning – but the article already discusses in much greater depth his activism before this point, so even that I'm not super convinced is that important to include. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Its clearly not trivia (it received feature coverage), but that doesn't mean its due. IMO this discussion would go much smoother if we focuses on whether or not it was due rather than bickering about whether its trivia/trivial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's clearly not trivia. Evidently numerous editors rightly perceive it as a trivial detail in the longer term of events. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

And I insist that those editors would be better served to argue that it is an undue detail in the longer term of events because that is a much stronger argument that accomplishes the same ends if I am not mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)