Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people

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

She was on the podcast (in which case the age should probably be removed) is a non-sequitur. To my knowledge no one is denying she was on the podcast. The article cites several WP:GREL sources saying Rain was 20 years old in 2024–2025. Per WP:DOBCONFLICT, we should simply include all birth years for which reliable sources exist. In this case that would be 2004/2005. Despite several users opining that combining different sources for the birthday and year of birth of a living person to arrive at an exact date of birth is a routine calculation, I maintain that it’s improper synthesis and not what is meant by “routine”. Therefore the September 22nd birthday should be omitted as unencyclopedic trivia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, to clarify that podcasts can be another type of self-published source along with books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts. We should avoid citing podcasts unless published by the subject themselves, just like the other types of sources listed. Why is Sally Celebrity’s statement on Harry Hollywood’s podcast ABOUTSELF while her interview on Harry Hollywood’s blog isn’t? WP:ABOUTSELF is about sources published by the subject themselves, which does not apply in this case. WP:RSPYT applies here as well, with the community’s consensus being that Content uploaded from a verified official account […] may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. Which in this case defaults to zero per WP:SPS. Common sense says that people lie all the time, which is why we rely on sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If the argument is that Rain faked her age for OnlyFans, how do we know she’s not faking her age on the podcast too? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The point was that you reverted someone based on a policy which didn’t say exactly what you had indicated before immediately adding it to the policy, which comes across as gaming policies to support your own stance.

Regarding the rest, common sense is exactly that – if someone states something is incorrect, or untrue, we note it and don’t take a stance on it one way or other per NPOV if it can be verified as being something a source stated themselves. You can state whatever policy you want to dig up to support your stance, but it comes across as more that you dislike podcasts as a source in any instance.

Awshort (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why on Discovery Institute is that disparaging tone not used on their lead? Explain that one to me. Where is the word a Pusdoscience organization? Is that now White Washing? With such flexiblity you open Pandora’s box. Where NPOV is now Whitewashing. Richard Dawkins, but then we have different rules for him. His lead would never mention he is a bigot and an Islamophobe. So these rules are so flexible they no longer serve as rules. While an offtopic, I tried to say something negative about BLM see the reverse, no negative in their lead using Wiki rules [1] dont you see the issue? Rules mean nothing when they can be twisted with more rules. Inayity (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

There are two issues:

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

Reporting about the lawyer Stebbins at NoFap and Nicole Prause.

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

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

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

Does [2] mean the trial got dismissed? No WP:RS commented thereupon (AFAIK). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Article: Scott Speer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal life

(short biographical section)

  ↳ (existing legal paragraph unchanged)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“According to the police” isn’t the right way to report that according to a bar owner’s statement to police that something happened, which is what the edit summary claims. but [3] appears to have the police there to hear “(racial expletive) lover” the statement. But [4] has the manager hearing “a racial slur” Am I reading those sources right? I don’t see a cop who has been asked to remove a customer going into another room and letting the customer exit unescorted.

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

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

That second complex.com source only reports that TMZ made the claim, and TMZ says that the manager made the claim. How does that equal “According to the police”? The Slate source implies that Zimmerman became angry at a waitress and called the bar’s manager a “nigger lover” and then the police were called — by Zimmerman. It also clearly says that it is re-reporting what is at [5] I am seeing nothing in any source that is inconsistent with the manager making the claim, not the police. BLP sourcing is a bright line that we must not cross, no matter how we feel about the individual who is the subject of the BLP. —Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This report concerns a biography of a living person.

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

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

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

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

Proposed neutral wording (example only):

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

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

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

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

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Stephen King § Removal of “trivia” about King’s comments about Kirk killing. Sundayclose (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aafia Siddiqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In October, User:FDW777 edited the article to remove the adjective “allegedly” [6] when describing the contention that Siddiqui stole a rifle and shot at U.S. personnel in Ghazni, Afghanistan. Siddiqui and some Afghan witnesses contest U.S. assertions. Siddiqui was extradited to the U.S. and convicted of attempted murder in a court in Manhattan. Looking back over the article’s history, the claim that Siddiqui shot at U.S. personnel has variously been attributed or not attributed, in the lead, over a period of many years.

I restored attribution of the claim here [7] a few days ago, noting that the article body attributes the claim that Siddiqui shot at U.S. personnel. FDW777 reverted [8], explaining, “tried and convicted.” On the talk page entry about our dispute, FDW777 further argues that because some article body sentences don’t use attribution, while embedded in a series of paragraphs and many sentences that do, we are not violating MOS:LEAD if we drop attribution in the lead as well.

I strenuously maintain that we need to keep attribution of this contested claim in the lead. I would appreciate if people here would comment on the issue. –Darouet (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Siddiqui and her legal team had their day in court, they lost. It isn’t for Wikipedia editors to attempt to relitigate the case on her behalf. As I noted on my removal of the first “alleged”, it ceased to be alleged once she went to court and was tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned. Where she remains to this day, having declined to appeal. There is no BLP issue in stating as fact that a convicted criminal did what they were convicted of, and their denials should not be given any weight in the lead whatsoever. FDW777 (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Darouet’s edit yesterday stated “The lead is a summary of the article, which does not state in Wikivoice that Siddiqui shot at U.S. personnel: something she and her lawyers always denied. If you want to edit the lead, you need to edit the article body”]. As I have pointed out here and here the article body already does just that, stating The captain dove for cover to his left as she yelled “Allah Akbar” and fired at least two shots at them, missing them. FDW777 (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody other than Siddiqui/her lawyers actually dispute that she fired the shots? If there’s a serious mainstream view that she was wrongfully convicted you might have a point here, but in general if someone has been convicted of a crime we absolutely both can and should say in Wikivoice that they did it. In a case such as Lucy Letby we carefully do not say in the lead in Wikivoice that she actually committed the murders that she was convicted of, but that’s a pretty extraordinary situation and so far as I can tell Siddiqui’s case is not remotely comparable – certainly nothing in the body of Siddiqui’s article suggests there’s any serious outside belief that she’s innocent. Even our discussion of the reaction to her case in Pakistan focuses on the belief among Pakistanis that she has been mistreated or tortured in jail, not that she is fundamentally innocent. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto-public: yes, many sources state that her guilt is questionable. From an academic journal and published in 2018:

“According to the official US story Siddiqui was arrested for suspicious behavior outside the governor’s compound in Ghazni, and when searched by the local police she was found to be in possession of materials suggesting links to terrorist networks. US Army and FBI officials arrived promptly at the Ghazni police station, and Siddiqui, who was unrestrained behind a curtain, is said to have grabbed an unsecured rifle and attempted to shoot at the US officials. Some witnesses were to testify later that she screamed, “Allahhuakbar” (God is great) or “death to all Americans” as she shot the gun, although these accounts vary. The FBI agents returned fire and shot her multiple times in the abdomen. Siddiqui was severely injured with multiple gunshots and was taken to a hospital facility at the US army airbase for treatment. In August 2008 Siddiqui was extradited to the United States. This particular rendition of the story was later to become the basis for the prosecutors’ account during the criminal trial proceedings in 2010.” (Shaikk, K, Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, Vol. 39, No. 3 (2018), pp. 29-54)

Professor Srini Sitaraman describes the conviction and the supporting evidence as farcical:

“A ninety-pound woman was convicted of unlocking and firing several rounds from the M-4 military assault rifle on American serviceman that she had apparently grabbed from the floor, that was apparently left fully loaded and unattended. No forensic evidence such as the discharged bullet casings or fingerprints on the M-4 rifle was found in the detention room to independently corroborate the claims made by the U.S. government prosecutors.” (Sitaraman, Srini. “Global War on Terrorism and Prosecution of Terror Suspects: Select Cases and Implications for International Law, Politics, and Security.” Amsterdam Law Forum, vol. 4, no. 1, Winter 2012, pp. 101-130.)

A recent NBC News summary [9] explains that while her case is a cause celebre among terrorist groups, mainstream Muslim organizations in the United States also maintain that she is innocent:

“Her release has long been sought by militant Islamists, and even mainstream U.S. Muslim groups have said she is innocent and should be freed… When she was brought to a “a poorly lit room partitioned by a yellow curtain” and “crowded with Afghan officials” in 2008 to be questioned by two FBI agents and at least four members of an undisclosed U.S. special forces unit, she grabbed the M-4 military rifle of a chief warrant officer and opened fire, federal prosecutors said. The FBI said she was behind that curtain. Her gunfire missed, prosecutors said, and the chief warrant officer shot her in the stomach with his sidearm. As the U.S. officials struggled to detain her, Siddiqui allegedly yelled, “I am going to kill all you Americans. You are going to die by my blood,” the prosecutors said.“

Note that the article is very careful to attribute the allegations. A 2014 Al Jazeera interview with Siddiqui’s family [10] prefaces the interview with this summary:

“Aafia’s case prompted international outrage, and divided legal opinion.”

This particular source precedes the conviction, but it’s from Harpers and describes the case against Siddiqui in similarly incredulous terms [11]. Interestingly, our article body takes a similar approach to the case as the Harper’s article: describing each version of events with attribution.

Of course, we need not follow their lead, but German, French, Italian, and Spanish wikis note that Siddiqui was convicted, but describe her shooting at U.S. personnel as allegations.

Obviously from the above sources the conviction remains controversial. And our own article details this. As I’ve tried to explain, converting the careful attribution of allegations provided in the article body with certainty in the lead violates MOS:LEAD. –Darouet (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A few people who want to relitigate the case based on claimed lack of forensic evidence are of no relevance. Once someone has been charged, convicted and sentenced “allegations” cease to be such. FDW777 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What policy are you referring to, and do you have any reliable commentary on journalists and professors attempting to relitigate this case? –Darouet (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rengarajan Jaiprakash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article for Rengarajan Jaiprakash has repeatedly had its promotional content restored by a user who I believe to be the subject of the article, User:Jaiprakash.jp.

On 24 June, 2020 the following took place: User:Viewmont Viking removed the promotional content.[12] This was restored by User:Jaiprakash.jp.[13] User:Viewmont Viking then removed the content again.[14] It was, again, restored by User:Jaiprakash.jp.[15]

On 11 December, 2022[16] and 21 August, 2023[17] respectively, User:Nikkimaria and Mean as custard removed promotional content.

On 10 September, 2023, User:Jaiprakash.jp then reverted these edits.[18]

On 12 December, 2023, User: Gonnym removed promotional content. [19]

On 9 July, 2024 User:Jaiprakash.jp then reverted the edit. [20]

The page as it stands right now is blatantly promotional material with few citations.

Apologies if this is not the right noticeboard to post this on or if I have formatted this incorrectly, I am relatively new to Wikipedia (and would love advice/tips for the future!)

Crimson the Rouge (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all of the article was unsourced and promotional in nature. I’ve cut it all. At this point, I’m not sure the subject is even notable. Woodroar (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Checking a few of the films listed in the article, I don’t see him listed in the associated articles. Cull the list of films? —Hipal (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I removed the films. Also sent the article to AfD. Woodroar (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They haven’t edited since last July, but according to WP:DUCK Jaiprakash.jp is obviously either Rengarajan Jaiprakash or someone closely associated with them. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. —Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Learner Tien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a disagreement between me and another user, who makes edits under different usernames, regarding Tien’s ethnicity and whether his family should be described as “Chinese people living in Vietnam” or as Hoa people. The phrase “Chinese people living in Vietnam” should be included in the article because his parents have stated that this is how they identify ethnically. Hoa people should be removed because it’s not properly sourced.

“His parents identify themselves as ‘Chinese living in Vietnam.'”This should be included in the article because his parents have publicly identified themselves as “Chinese living in Vietnam.” This is neutral and a direct quote from his parents. My last edit included a direct quote from an article that quoted his dad saying, “thought of themselves as ‘Chinese living in Vietnam.'” I tried adding this, but user keeps reverting it.[21]

This is the YouTube source included in the article [22]

Under the header Early life, it incorrectly says his parents are Hoa people. That information is not mentioned in the video source or any source in the article. In the video source, his parents publicly self-identified themselves as “Chinese living in Vietnam.” We cannot force the term “Hoa” against their own self-description, and we cannot deduce their identity as Hoa. This is original research and violates BLP policy.

“Chinese living in Vietnam” is not the same as Hoa. They have described their ethnicity with a geographical description, not identifying themselves as a recognized minority group in Vietnam who have their own culture and history. Adding the direct quote clarifies this.

WP:CAAP#V – “Also, while historical persons may be identified from sources by notable association with a particular ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability, living people should have self-identified.”

My arguments are also on the talk page. LilAhok (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At Ludwig Kaiser#Personal life, there seems to be a long-running dispute over the status of the subject’s relationship with a woman. (see the page history and protection logs). The sources used were published in February and April 2025. Several temp account editors appear to claim the couple has since broken up based on evidence from social media postings, while established editors seem to be reverting these changes. I tried attributing to the source dates, but I’m not certain that fully resolves it based on subsequent edits. With this much contention, I’m wondering if simply removing the section is the best path forward for everyone concerned. Input welcome. Left guide (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think your wording is good, but temp accounts will continue to change it without sourcing, or stating that Kaiser was seen with some other woman on social media, which obviously isn’t good enough sourcing. I’m hoping we can find an actual reliable source that states they are separated, as it’s likely true. — Czello ^(music) 07:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Best to remove I’d say. McPhail (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that report on the relationship are not strong given the WP:BLPGOSSIP headlines and I have removed the section as a result. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed a similar section of the Tiffany Stratton article for the same reason.–~2026-85981-2 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article has previously been on this noticeboard before:

In the last couple of days there has been conflicting reporting between CNN, in which the subject states that reporting of her having the SRY gene is fake, and a French language source—and some English language sources which parrot the French source—which state that the subject has stated that she has SRY gene. In this circumstance given WP:V and that there is conflict between a reputable English source and the French source, I previously reverted attempts to insert material into the article that the subject has stated they have the SRY gene and have explicitly called out WP:BLPUNDEL and WP:ONUS. Other editors however have chosen to disregard their obligations to BLP and reinsert the contested material in other places of the article.
The article has a 1RR exemption and out of abundance of caution, I am bringing it here. Can I please get experienced editors input at Talk:Imane Khelif#February 2026TarnishedPath^talk 09:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t necessarily see any conflicting reporting.

CNN, in which the subject states that reporting of her having the SRY gene is fake Precision is crucial here, so this needs clarification. The wording seems to suggest that Khelif is responding to the French source (an interview from this week), which is not correct. Rather, in another interview with CNN this week, Khelif specifically called out a medical report that was leaked last year as inaccurate, without going into details [23]: The World Boxing decision came after a report alleging that Khelif had XY chromosomes circulated online. Khelif told CNN the report was inaccurate and “modified.”

It can both be true that the leaked medical report was incorrect (for whatever reason, left unspecified) and that the French interview correctly reported her statements about having the SRY gene. This is enough of a hot-button issue – and Khelif has a large enough platform – that any inaccuracies in reporting would very likely be called out. Astaire (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could interpret it that Khelif was responding to the medical report, or you could interpret it that she was responding to the reporting of the medical report. Thinking of her statements in broader terms, they could be interpreted as responding to the general claims made in the medical report/reporting (that she has SRY). The distance between the CNN reporting and the French reporting was a day, so we have a very potential conflict and WP:BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject’s privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia’s job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people’s lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a glaring contradiction within the sources that are reporting the contentious claim:

The boxer, who aims to compete in the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, knows that she will have to agree to mandatory gender testing imposed by World Boxing, a body recognised by the International Olympic Committee, and says she is ready. “For the next Games, if I have to take a test, I will. I have no problem with that,” she said. “I’ve already taken this test. I contacted World Boxing, I sent them my medical records, my hormone tests, everything. But I haven’t had any response. I’m not hiding, I’m not refusing the tests.”

Why would she admit to having a gene that would prevent her from participating in the Olympics? M.Bitton (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is intended to ensure that WP:BLP is being applied. It is not a venue to litigate an active and well-attended talk page discussion in parallel, especially when your initial statement either misunderstands or misrepresents the core of the dispute. In any case, the page is now fully protected, so this thread can probably be archived. Riposte97 (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is intended to ensure that WP:BLP is being applied.

That’s precisely why I posted here. Please adhere to WP:AGF. TarnishedPath^talk 01:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TarnishedPath, I didn’t raise this on the talk page at the time as it is a side issue, but again here you mention that the one source is in French and previously you stated [where] something else is published in a non-English language source and which conflicts with the English language source then we go with the English language source. I don’t think that is a correct interpretation of WP:NONENG. We prefer English language sources on Wikipedia because this is an English language project, and so anyone wishing to verify the information from the citations will have a much easier time of it if the sources are in English. But the fact they are in English does not give them precedence in terms of the information they convey.As for others, I’m all for waiting for better sourcing, but if the better sourcing is not in English, it will remain the better sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Better sourcing would be good, which is very much in line with my arguments in the RFC. Regarding WP:NONENG it explicitly states that “because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance“. To me this clearly implies that English language sources have precedence. I understand if you see it differently. TarnishedPath^talk 11:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Of equal quality and relevance” being key. If L’Équipe put out an English language version of their article, that would be the preferred one. Le Monde have essentially done just that in reporting on this interview. Nothing denigrates the quality of the information simply because the original interview was in French. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If L’Équipe put out an English version I dare say it would say something different to what Le Monde states.

Le Monde states unambiguously things that can’t be taken from the an English translation of the L’Équipe story. TarnishedPath^talk 12:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC at Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC: SRY gene. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 02:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to request the change of editor to the Wikipedia article on Kim Seon-ho, a South Korean actor. The current editor does not allow important information to be added. The page the way it reads suggests that is being written by his fans rather by a neutral editor.

Verifiable information regarding the tax evasion controversy has been repeatedly removed. The reason given by the editor “it has been cleaned and cleared” while the real information is that the actor apologized and paid back the taxes.

All reputable Korean news sources reported it, including Chosun Ilbo and MBC.

The article, the way it is written, looks more like a biased and partial view rather than an article providing accurate and verifiable information.

I request that the editorial behavior on this page be reviewed and that appropriate steps are taken.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-entertainment/2026/02/06/QCNVZYNC35FNHHEZ5KOP2KMUGM/
https://imnews.imbc.com/news/2026/econo/article/6798664_36933.html

Corina Tarnita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a close COI regarding the subject and am not editing the article directly.

The article currently contains an extensive section titled “Relationship with …” (current: Special:Permalink/1336716129). The section relies heavily on primary documents (DOJ PDFs) and includes privacy-invasive personal details (including verbatim quotations from private email correspondence and specific personal travel arrangements). It also includes insinuative language and synthesis/guilt-by-association framing in a standalone section.

Requests:

1) Uninvolved editor/admin review for BLP compliance (primary-source use, privacy, undue weight) and remove this section or pare back to a short policy-compliant summary.

2) If appropriate, please consider temporary page protection due to rapid back-and-forth editing.

3) For revisions that include privacy-breaching material, please consider RevDel/Oversight.

Example diffs:

Thank you.
Onestitate (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section due to WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPCRIME concerns regarding a non-public figure and issued a BLP contentious topic alert for the user that added most of this information. The details were supported by Deparment of Justice files or the Princeton student paper. These allegations require much stronger sources for inclusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An IP address continues to edit war in this section despite the WP:NPF, WP:BLPPRIMARY, and WP:UNDUE concerns. I’m on my third revert and requested RPP so hopefully an admin will look at this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What’s really weird is that was an edit war really necessary for a section containing 5 paragraph of details that ended up being summarised as “The emails themselves do not describe or allege illegal activity and primarily document communication, travel coordination, financial support, and professional interaction”? Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin has handled the situation for now. If needed, you can contact me to investigate any further issues. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for other edits, but the edit I made to the page did not contain any privacy-invasive, primary material with undue weight. My edits cited Nature, which is regarded as one of the most reputable sources of information on planet Earth. My edits did not many any allegations or insinuations, but merely reiterated what Nature accurately reported, namely that “In 2026, Tarnita was named in the Epstein files. E-mails between Tarnita and Epstein^[1] show they were in contact since at least December 2008, with Tarnita sending Epstein birthday messages in 2010 and 2011, years after Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in June 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute.” It is demonstrably true that Tarnita had email contact with Epstein in 2008, 2010, and 2011, as reported by Nature. I strongly encourage others here to read the Nature article cited above and cross-reference it with my edit. By all means delete speculative content and false information, but WP:NPF explicitly instructs to “include only material relevant to the person’s notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.” Associations with Epstein are obviously relevant to the person’s notability and Nature is an extremely high-quality secondary source. Latimeriachalumnae (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry to be unpleasant but plain speaking is good. An account that piles stuff into a BLP as their first edit to an article is unlikely to persuade others that they are motivated to write neutral, encyclopedic articles. That’s particularly true when the edit summary is “added Tarnita’s relationship with disgraced financier, child sex offender, serial rapist, and human trafficker Jeffrey Epstein as documented in Nature”. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That wording was taken directly from the Wikipedia article for Jeffrey Epstein which describes him as a “financier, philanthropist, child sex offender, serial rapist, and human trafficker”… It would be helpful if you could explain how my edit to the Tarnita page was inaccurate, irrelevant to notability, lacking a high-quality secondary source, or was inconsistent with Wikipedia guidance. Otherwise, I can’t understand why the edit was undone. Latimeriachalumnae (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Latimeriachalumnae One is alive, the other is dead. Under UK law one cannot libel the dead. Other jurisdictions may differ. I am not a lawyer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out the libel in my edit to the Corina Tarnita page. Latimeriachalumnae (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Convincing everyone about everything is not possible and there does not need to be any debate about edits like this. Adding that someone exchanged emails with Epstein who was really evil is smear-by-association. Pushing that will lead to a block. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This content concerns a living person and includes an allegation and follow-up material that are not supported by reliable, independent sources. Reliable published sources report that the allegations could not be upheld and were found to be inaccurate. Per Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy, inaccurate or unverifiable material should be removed. The follow-up section derives entirely from the disputed allegation and lacks independent relevance.

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

Removal of disputed content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Uffindell&oldid=1336898987

Re-addition of disputed content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Uffindell&oldid=1336984165

~~~~

~2025-43323-67 (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me note that I don’t see any discussion made on the talk page before bringing it here…. no, wait, you did start a discussion of the page, then unstarted it less than half an hour later, before anyone had responded. As it says at the top of this page, “Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.”

Second, the material you are trying to delete is sourced — the accusation was made. We are not stating in Wikipedia’s voice that the allegations were true, we refer to them as allegations. We also include in the article that the political party claimed that the concern was not substantiated… which is not the same as it being false (nor does a political party’s investigation get treated as equal to a court ruling.) But we do report their stated result of the investigation.

Wikipedia does have some guidance that we should not be even mentioning allegations of things that may be crimes, but quite importantly that advice does not apply to public figures. An MP is clearly a public figure. — Nat Gertler (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I understand that sourced allegations involving public figures may be mentioned when neutrally framed.

My concern is with implication created by wording and structure, rather than the mere fact that an allegation was reported. The current text gives extensive, vivid detail to an allegation that was later found not to be substantiated, while placing the investigative outcome later in the section. In addition, the inclusion of unrelated but suggestive material and third-party reactions, presented in close proximity, risks creating an implied narrative of sexual or intimidatory misconduct that is not supported by the investigation’s findings.

Per WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH, content about living persons should avoid constructing inference or guilt by association through narrative structure, particularly where allegations were not upheld. Per WP:UNDUE, the level of descriptive and emotive detail appears disproportionate given the outcome.

I am not seeking to dispute that allegations were reported, but I believe the section should be significantly condensed, with the investigative outcome placed immediately alongside the allegation, and with sensational or derivative material removed or collapsed, to ensure the article does not imply serious misconduct beyond what reliable sources ultimately support.

I would appreciate guidance on whether restructuring the section along these lines would better align with BLP policy.

~2025-43323-67 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree more regarding issues of weight if we were dealing with an investigation that was independently held and reported… if, say, a respectable journalistic outlet had investigated and made a similar outlet. That is not this. This is the subject’s own team, filtering their own report through their own choice of description. We don’t put so much weight on the manufacturer of exploding cars saying “our research suggests that our cars may not be the cause of the explosions.” However, I will again suggest that this is something that you should be discussing on the Talk page of the article, not bringing it here without having done so, and particularly in a way that doesn’t draw the attention of the other editors of that page. — Nat Gertler (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{Epstein-stub}} has been created and adds category:Jeffrey Epstein to articles. It’s being used on BLP articles, for instance see Peggy Siegal. Should this even exist? — LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m starting to wonder if Epstein should be designated a contentious topic. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]