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.

Karmelo Anthony

Should juvenile Karmelo Anthony be mentioned at this time on Wikipedia? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I have blanked the Karmelo Anthony page (which was a redirect to the mention of a crime for which this person has not been convicted, and which showed no other basis for notability of this person) and filed a deletion request for that. The name is not mentioned on the page that is mentioning the crime, although that still may be worth someone taking to the wording. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure that should go to AFD instead of WP:RFD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Ach. But someone set it up to Speedy; I'm not sure it 100% qualifies, but I will have no qualms if it disappears that way. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

It may be time to permanently delete his name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

It got speedy deleted. But this namespace is worth keeping a longish temporary watch on. I don't think this issue will go away until the news story does. Courts are slowly incremental, so this issue might become briefly perennial. At best, this namespace could be a redirect to a 1E, but only if the underlying event is ever shown to be notable. JFHJr (㊟) 02:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The references at Killing of Austin Metcalf need to be examined. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

There is now a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_18#Karmelo_Anthony. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf on whether to include or exclude the minor suspect's name. There is a simultaneous discussion at RfD (linked above) whose posture may be impacted by the consensus there. This is all going on before any judgment, and we're not a newspaper... both discussions could still use more input from BLPN veterans. JFHJr (㊟) 04:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

There's an RfC now regarding the suspect's name @ Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf#RFC: Name of alleged killer. Some1 (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, his name should be included the relevant article as can be sourced to a RS. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@MasterBlasterofBarterTown this is not the discussion about inclusion or exclusion, that is happening at Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf#RFC: Name of alleged killer. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Violet Sky

I need to point out any issues that this may have. For the Draft:Violet Sky, how can I improve them? By the way, I can't find a lot of sources anymore, even if she is popular enough to be on there. Aubreeprincess (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Aubreeprincess, if the reliable sources don't exist to support WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, then your draft should stay in draftspace. The last reviewer left comments amounting to 1) no apparent textual/facial claim to notability; 2) reliance on local coverage; and 3) reliance on WP:BLPSPS. If you're unable to correct those points, it shouldn't be published. You might find it easier to write drafts about deceased persons or non-human subjects. JFHJr (㊟) 00:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Theo Von

The page for Theo Von has a clear contradiction in it.

Theo's Date of Birth is given, then his father's date of birth is given. Later in the article, it says that Theo's father was 67 when Theo was born, but he rounds it up to 70 for comedy. BUT the date of births provided clearly add up to him being 70, which is a weird and obvious contradiction to have in an article. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.228.133 (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

A simple search on Google reveals his father’s gravestone which says 1912 as the birth year. Fixed in the article. NJZombie (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Lachlan Galvin

Lachlan Galvin - Wikipedia Lachlan Galvin Australian professional rugby league footballer is going through a public contract fall out and his page is receiving vandalism Australian professional rugby league.

Requesting page lock unless confirmed user with min 1000 or so edits for the mean time if possible Therlinsideman (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I put in a request for page protection. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Venus Angelic

Link to diff. I removed the last paragraph but it got reverted due to WP:ABOUTSELF. However, I disagree. Venus didn't make those Reddit posts. They're screenshots of tweets that can be easily faked. Even if the tweets are real, we should at least cite the tweets themselves instead of a reddit post showing a screenshot of them. We still need a better source than a reddit post. This is poorly sourced, potentially libellous, and I will remove them every single time they appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.52.85.246 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. Please be sure to follow WP:BRD on the talkpage. JFHJr (㊟) 01:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I actually BLARed the article on BLP grounds as it was sourced very poorly; may rewrite it from scratch at some point.--Launchballer 02:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Monika Bacardi

User:Museartists has acknowledged that they work professionally with Monika Bacardi and have a conflict of interest regarding her article. They made some requests to remove her maiden name and a sentence about her working for her future husband in the 1990s, both of which are sourced. What is the policy for these kinds of requests, and should they be fulfilled? Mellamelina (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mellamelina For example, WP:BLPKIND and WP:DOB. My impression is that the sources for Monika Bacardi's maiden-name looks alright, and assuming the ref for "In 1997, she began working as an assistant to Luis Gómez del Campo y Bacardí, her future husband." checks out, IMO that's reasonable content too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing in our articles for the maiden name isn't great. SZ is fine assuming it mentions the name but the other source is some government source. However it does seem the name is wide spread in other sources suggesting WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns are allayed. Nil Einne (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Alexandr Koptsev

Article calls him a terrorist without sources. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Also see The Turner Diaries. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason you didn't remove the claim yourself? 206.83.103.251 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I expected faster action and was cooking dinner. I do little after dinner as I watch tv with my wife and try to avoid using my iPad to edit, with my Parkinson's it's too easy to mess things up. I also wasn't sure about how to word the first sentence. Thanks for your help with the first, I've reverted the second. I've invited the editor to defend their edits here. Doug Weller talk 08:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the subject, but at first glance this appears to be a WP:BLP1E. Am I wrong in my assessment?

Also the lack of sourcing for some of the statements is not good. TarnishedPath^talk 08:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Also MOS:CRIMINAL TarnishedPath^talk 08:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There is at least one book, and what appears to be several, that quite extensively covers him. Probably should be "eventified" but the crime does clearly pass NEVENT. This article is just really old and from before inline citations were mandatory, and was never updated.

I don't know why you'd remove the Turner Diaries edit, anyway, it was sourced. "connection not made?" PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Support eventifying. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I am busy atm but if no one does it within a few days ping me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA moved and done some basic work. The article will need more refracturing though to focus on the event. TarnishedPath^talk 10:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to fix it up more later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure now, sorry. It was clearly an error. Probably my concern about the clear BLP violation made me dubious. And of course I brought it here for review. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Ken Aldred

Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

As per wikipedia guidelines concerning Biographies, have removed contentious material that was poorly sourced, and not neutral in tone.

The following previous references were unviable: 6 - Link does not work 7 - Page not found 8 - Article Deleted by news outlet, no verifiability 9 - RickRoss.com is not a reliable source, it no longer exists 10 - Link does not work 11 - Opinion pieces are self-published media, not a valid reference

Edits have repeatedly added this defamatory or libelous, non-neutral material over an extended period of time: Aldred was disendorsed by the Liberal Party for Deakin in 1995 for the 1996 federal election and subsequently used parliamentary privilege to make allegations of involvement in espionage and drug trafficking against a prominent Jewish lawyer and a senior foreign affairs official,[6] using documents that were later found to be forged,[7] which had been supplied to him by LaRouche movement front organisation the Citizens Electoral Council.[8][9][10] He also alleged that the Department of Foreign Affairs had twenty child sexual abusers employed in senior positions, and named senior diplomat John Holloway, who was charged and later acquitted.[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlpado (talk • contribs) 03:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Re non-working links see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Also note that you're referring to someone who is no longer pertinent to WP:BLP. This doesn't mean we'll tolerate material that isn't properly sourced -- but you are referring to the wrong policy and posting in the wrong place. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thomas Heywood (organist)

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)

Morgpie

Hi. This is my first time trying to start a discussion here, so apologies if it's clunky or long-winded or anything like that. Over at the talk page for the Morgpie BLP article, @Morbidthoughts: and I have discussed BLP policies as they pertain to sourcing information regarding Morgpie's age and where she's from, as well as comments about her career she gave in an interview (courtesy pinging just if they perhaps would like to add their own thoughts here and not have their input be left out). I am more concerned about the former, though I guess input on that might be similarly applied to the latter.

Basically, I am trying to use Morgpie's appearance on Hasan Piker's Twitch stream/podcast, in conjunction with her own tweets, to source her birthday being June 1999 or 2000. In the podcast (dated June 17, 2023), she says she's 23; and in the tweets (dated June 25, 2021), she says her birthday was "earlier" that week. Together, in theory, those sources would totally be fine to source her birthday as being June 1999 or 2000 (as per WP:CALC). The stream also features her saying she is from Texas. However, this stream source has come into question, because it was published by Piker and not by her. While, those two statements should be allowed as they do not violate any of the five bulleted criteria on WP:ABOUTSELF, the guideline also says the content must be self-published. I believe this also applies ("this" being that the info she shares doesn't violate the WP:ABOUTSELF's five bulleted criteria either) to that aformentioned interview on her career, conducted by CamGirlAllAccess, in which she shares that she began creating amateur pornography in 2019. If it doesn't apply to that source, then just set that one aside.

Aside from WP:ABOUTSELF, there is also WP:BLPSPS. That policy is a bit more ambiguous than ABOUTSELF, though. Particularly, WP:BLPSPS's statement that "unless written or published by the person themself". I find that ambiguous because of the "or" used as opposed to "written and published" being the policy. Wondering if maybe that opens up the possibility of this source being allowed since Morgpie wrote that she was 23 (or said in this case, because it's an audiovisual stream/podcast medium we're talking about). Also think that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content's statement on emphasizing the spirit of a policy/guideline's rule is worth bringing up here. In my opinion, even if ABOUTSELF and BLPSPS don't allow for the source to be used as per Piker publishing the stream, I feel this just creates a bureaucratic barrier to using harmless and useful sources that would otherwise be allowable (as in―in the context of using it as a source to cite Morgpie's age or where she's from on her eponymous article―is there really some sort of monumental article-breaking difference in if the stream was published by Piker or Morgpie herself?).

Both her being 23 and from Texas seem not crazy/truly contentious, and just more like standard information. If as per ABOUTSELF or BLPSPS, that isn't allowed to be sourced via her own comments in her appearance on the Hasan Piker podcast, then maybe we should lax the policy a tad, or create some sort of tweaked wording (or even an entirely new policy/guideline shortcut link) to allow for cases like this? Obviously, the information would still need to be in line with the five points on WP:ABOUTSELF (neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; does not involve claims about third parties; does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources). Maybe some additional bullets can be added for cases like this—where the source is published by someone else, but the subject themselves still appear as a guest and make comments about themselves—just to balance out this slight relaxing of the guideline and prevent any potential egregious loophole exploitation but I just think it's pretty silly that as presently constructed, I can't source things as standard as her age and where she's from to her own comments simply because they came during a guest appearance. Soulbust (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Pat Thane

Pat Thane is the name of the article. I am Pat Thane and can testify that parts of it are outdated or inaccurate. They are: I am no longer at King's College. Since 2019 I have been a Visiting Professor in History at Birkbeck College London University. I no longer teach any of the courses listed. I am no longer Scientific Advisor to the DWP, so eliminate this. The International Group on Nordic welfare terminated some years ago. Please eliminate it. Please add my two most recent books: Divided Kingdom. A History of Britain 1900 to the Present.(Cambridge University Press, 2018). The Rise and Fall of the British Welfare State. From Poverty in 1900 to Poverty in 2023. (Bloomsbury 2024).

Please revise the entry taking account of these changes in the interests of accuracy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:BAA9:2E01:D029:9840:AC1F:48DA (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Pat. First, see WP:WHYREGISTER and the Volunteer Response Team page for steps you might take to confirm we are talking to the actual subject. See also WP:COI about how to offer contributions to an article about you. I've edited the article to move some dated claims out of the intro section and changed the grammar so it doesn't claim you still do certain things. Your requests for additions require reliable sources (preferably not primary sources, which currently appear on a rather unencyclopedic rate). If you'd like anyone watching here or on the talkpage to consider additions, please provide some reliable sources we can use as references. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Pat Thane, I've also done a little work on the article. I don't have as much time to edit Wikipedia as I'd like, but I have watchlisted the article and its [page], and will try to respond (if slowly) to anything you bring up at the article talk page. Agree with JFHJr that you registering might be somewhat helpful. As far as sources: per WP:BLPSPS, we can use your CV or a similar document for basic career arc info (but not much more); per WP:NPROF, the primary sources for fellowship in learned societies are acceptable. I am of the opinion that books are generally worth including in an article, but reviews published in reliable sources can make this clearer (as they demonstrate impact, both abstractly and in the specific Wikipedia-notability sense). In general, anything of length published about you or your work in an independent reliable source might tend to be helpful to bring up at the talk page. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Elisa Torres Durney

Hello, I'm the father of Elisa Torres Durney, and I've noticed that this article has a conflict of interest (COI) flag, indicating potential undisclosed paid contributions and concerns about neutrality. I'd like to request that experienced, neutral editors review it and help align it with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly regarding neutrality and source reliability.

If possible, a copyedit or rewrite by independent editors would be appreciated to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's standards. Thank you very much!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisa_Torres_Durney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayro370 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewed by me! :) Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 23:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like @Vanamonde93 added the COI template. Given @Valorrr's review, do you feel the article still needs the template? Iknowyoureadog (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the stuff that's sourced to non-independent sources, yes. I did a bit of scraping post-Valorrr's review, removing things like a claim in Wikipedia's voice that the subject "became one of the 10 best students in the world", and that she had been "expanding her knowledge", but there is more to be done and I'm too tired to do it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I added the tag after the review, so yes, I believe it is necessary. I took a look at a related SPI, so I will not be getting INVOLVED in the article text myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

CC: @Vanamonde93: @NatGertler:
Alright, will check again. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 23:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

Lawrence Hartmann, M.D.

In December, 2024, someone at Wikipedia deleted several paragraphs -- about half a page ---of (correct) information from the end of the Public Career section of the LH Wikipedia biography. That deleted material contains a good bit of what made LH's career memorable, and its deletion left the biography unbalanced. Today I abbreviated what had been deleted, and added citations, and re-added some of that material. Within hours, it was re-deleted. Why ? The material is accurate and pertinent and non-libellous ,and has citations. Fextal147! (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use that citation style where you just include the number of the citation, or Cf. See WP:REPEATCITE - For multiple use of the same citation, you use the named references feature. And with the content you want to add, the language has to be neutral, without editorializing, and without boosterism.

For instance, don't write: Hartmann's activism and interest in complex psychiatic issues and biopsychosocial integration led him to be elected a member of the APA Assembly and subsequently Speaker of the Assembly before being elected Area Trustee, Vice President (1990) and then President of the APA (1991–1992). Instead, say: In 19xx, Hartmann was elected a member of the APA assembly, and also served as vice president in 1990, and then president from 1991 to 1992 And don't say things like "remarkably unresponsive" and "widely influential". Just state the facts, using a neutral tone. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Very much agreed. And perhaps switching from "served as" to just "was". Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 22 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)

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)