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.

Keiko Fujimori

This is a BLP about a Peruvian politician who has Japanese ancestry. There is currently a hatnote that says "In this Spanish name, the first or paternal surname is Fujimori and the second or maternal family name is Higuchi." There is no source anywhere in the BLP saying she has a Spanish name, and obviously it's not a Spanish name.

The name of the BLP is "Keiko Fujimori", and her full name in the opening sentence is "Keiko Sofía Fujimori Higuchi".

A correct hatnote would say this: "In her full name, the first or paternal surname is Fujimori and the second or maternal family name is Higuchi, per a format common in Peru." But this has been reverted in favor of the version quoted previously which contains the false and unsourced assertion that she has a Spanish name. Neither the name in the article title nor the name in the opening sentence of the lead is a Spanish name, although the latter is formatted as one.

A reader who arrives at this BLP will read the title "Keiko Fujimori" and then the hatnote's claim that it's a Spanish name, and will either be confused or will infer that the rest of the BLP is baloney too. The current hatnote uses a template that's used on many biographical articles, but not in a situation like this where a Japanese name is formatted as a Spanish one. The cookie-cutter approach using that template results in an erroneous and unsourced statement. Does anyone have an opinion about this? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

As is mentioned in the article you linked, the term "Spanish name" is referring to the Spanish naming customs of having two surnames, not the linguistic or cultural origin of their actual name. Someone's name can be "John Doe Smith" and still be following Spanish naming custom even though none of those names are of Spanish origin.

In this case, the linguistic origin of "Keiko Sofía Fujimori Higuchi" is obviously Japanese, but the custom of having a surname from both your mother and father is Spanish naming custom and nothing to do with what her names actually are. RachelTensions (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. The present issue rarely arises, because Spanish naming customs are almost always applied to Spanish names. This BLP is unusual in that regard. Unusual facts require unusual treatment. Since the name is "obviously Japanese", I plan to restore the correct hatnote: "In her full name, the first or paternal surname is Fujimori and the second or maternal family name is Higuchi, per a format common in Peru." Unless there is consensus here at BLPN to not do that. For us to say it's a Spanish name is clearly false and unsourced. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Now someone has changed it so the hatnote says her name is "Hispanic American", which is also false and unsourced. In reality, her parents gave Japanese names to all of their children. See Kimura, Rei. Alberto Fujimori; el presidente que se atrevió a sonar, p. 44 (2005): "Fue extraño que Fujimori hubiera puesto nombres japoneses a todos sus hijos...." The name "Keiko" means “blessed child” in Japanese. See "Dynasty daughter Keiko Fujimori wins Peru presidency on fourth go", Japan Times (30 Jun 2026). The name is Japanese, & the hatnote remains false and unsourced. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are overcomplicating this issue and are putting too much focus on her Japanese ancestry. As per Article 20 of the Peruvian Civil Code "The child has the first surname of the father and the first surname of the mother", and it is sourced by Associated Press that individuals of Spain and Latin America must legally use this surname formatting when their birth is registered. Hence, it is correct to use "Hispanic American" as she is not a national of Spain using a Spanish naming custom, but that she is a Peruvian national legally having the naming customs stipulated by Peruvian law and one that is widely used in Latin America (which is similarly modeled after Spain and that Peru is located in Latin America).

Simply put, it is common knowledge that "Keiko", "Fujimori" and "Higuchi" are not Spanish origin names, they are Japanese. But as RachelTensions puts it, the hatnote explains the specific legal naming structure used for individuals who are citizens/born in Hispanic America, it is not there to tell the reader that the respective names are inherently Spanish and what not. Hispanic America is an historically acceptable term to refer to the Spanish speaking countries in Latin America (as per these sources:).

References

For example, a footballer named Dean Huijsen who was born in the Netherlands to Dutch parents had to change his legal name that follows Spanish naming customs after naturalizing. Obviously his last names are of Dutch origin, but by law he has to adopt the Spanish naming structure. This is similar to Keiko who was born in Peru and is solely a Peruvian citizen (unless other nationalities are sourced), but despite being of Japanese ancestry, she must legally use a Hispanic American naming structure in an official manner. Her parents giving her Japanese names is a personal choice (most likely to reflect on tradition and her ancestry), but is largely irrelevant as this focuses mainly on naming customs, not the ethnic origin of names.

Your proposed hatnote formatting would therefore be incorrect, as it is not just only a common thing, but it is a legal thing. And since the term Hispanic American can be used, the hatnote in it's current form is fine. Changing the hatnote into individual countries "e.g. Peruvian, Mexican, Bolivian" is counter-productive and would be confusing itself, as practically all of Latin America uses this name formatting so grouping it into a single term would be better for a general reader. SpyroeBM (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

SpyroeBM, you keep saying that she has a "Hispanic American naming structure". That's 100% correct, but it's not what the hatnote says. The hatnote says she has a "Hispanic American name" which is contrary to all our reliable sources, and will be confusing and misleading for readers. We don't have to say what kind of name she has in a hatnote. If you want to change "common" to "legal" then why not do that? Actually it is both common and legal, so either would be correct, but if you want to change it then I have no objection. What I object to is the absurd claim in the hatnote that she has a "Hispanic American name" when she obviously doesn't, and all of our sources say she doesn't. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You’re still conflating a name of Hispanic origin with Hispanic naming convention. Her name is not of Hispanic linguistic origin, but it IS following Hispanic naming convention. That’s what the hatnote in all these articles are referring to, and that’s what is wikilinked in the hatnote.

This is a Peruvian women born and raised in Peru to Peruvian parents. It is unfortunate that the simple fact that she’s of an ethnic minority in Peru has caused so many exasperating conversations. RachelTensions (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Her name is the name that two citizens born in a Hispanic American country gave to their child, also a citizen of that country. That some other location has some historic influence on the elements of that name does not erase that it is what a Hispanic American has been named, and is a Hispanic American name. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If she has a Hispanic American name then you should have no difficulty finding a source that says so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

User:NatGertler, you think it's fine to hide sourced information to support a falsehood? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you think it's fine to invent a stance for a person? There is more than one basis for applying a location descriptor, and I'm dubious that Asiaweek is a reliable source on Hispanic American names. Me, I live in the United States, where it's perfectly fine to describe as an "American" name one that is not derived from the languages of the indigenous people. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Not just Asiaweek (which is certainly reliable about Asian names):

• "Dynasty daughter Keiko Fujimori wins Peru presidency on fourth go", Japan Times (30 Jun 2026): "Keiko, whose name in Japanese means 'blessed child'...."
• "The Asian Who Won Peru", Asiaweek, Volume 16, p. 27 (1990): "His four children have both Japanese and Spanish Christian names"
• Kimura, Rei. Alberto Fujimori; el presidente que se atrevió a sonar, p. 44 (Ediciones Felou, 2005): "Fue extraño que Fujimori hubiera puesto nombres japoneses a todos sus hijos...."
• Kimura, Rei. Alberto Fujimori of Peru, p. 45 (Bangkok Book House, 2017): "Fujimori had Japanese names for all his children....Not only did he give them Japanese names, he also ensured that these names were entered in the official registration records."

User:NatGertler, almost all of this has been removed from article text, at the same time the "citation needed" tag was removed from the hatnote. There is zero reason to state in the hatnote what type of name she has, much less an unsourced and fallacious statement in the hatnote. I might add that the infobox field for "native name" is also being misused to include Japanese characters above her photo; she is not native to Japan. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

All of these sources are very obviously referring to the linguistic origin of her names, which nobody is contesting is Japanese.

You've seemingly glazed over the fact that has been pointed out several times: the hatnote has nothing to do with linguistic origin, whatsoever. It is to do with Hispanic naming custom of having both a maternal and paternal surname. That is why the hatnotes link to Spanish naming customs and Naming customs of Hispanic America.

The subject of the article having a name that follows Hispanic naming custom is pretty much a WP:SKYISBLUE moment. You're not going to find a source specifically saying what you're looking for, because why would you? It's unlikely a reliable source would make any effort to point out something that is otherwise so obvious for almost every Peruvian.

The tree goes: 1) Is this person from a country that follows Hispanic naming customs?
If yes, 2) Does this person have a surname from both their mother & father.
If yes, this person has a name that follows Hispanic naming custom.

It seems like this article is being handled differently than others solely because the subject is of an ethnic minority in Peru, which is quite unfortunate. RachelTensions (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I cannot take this seriously, because you have refused to support any clarification of the hatnote. As I have proposed repeatedly to you, we could easily say in the hatnote something like, "In her full name, the first or paternal surname is Fujimori and the second or maternal family name is Higuchi, per naming customs in Peru." A hispanic naming structure is obviously not the same thing as a hispanic name. You must realize that this issue simply does not arise in most cases, because the hispanic naming structure is almost always applied to hispanic names. This discussion has become a pointless test of wills, rather than a search for reasonable compromise. You think I'm trying to emphasize her Japanese ancestry? I've said the hatnote should not discuss anything about her ancestry or about Japan. I have also objected to misuse of the infobox to emphasize her Japanese heritage by misusing the "native name" field. The hatnote should also be a footnote because it does not apply at all to the name in the article title, and readers should not be forced to figure that out for themselves. These are all elementary things. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me none of the sources provided so far dispute that Keiko Fujimori's name is a Hispanic American or a Spanish name. IMO we should have a wider discussion on whether there's a better way to handle cases generally, e.g. Néstor Kirchner and I think quite a lot of articles refer to Spanish names instead of Hispanic American names. But I don't see any reason to single out Keiko Fukimori especially as she was born in Peru and speaks Spanish as her native language. Nil Einne (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That's right, they don't explicitly dispute that it's a Hispanic American name. Nor that it's an Eskimo name or a Pakistani name.

(1) "Dynasty daughter Keiko Fujimori wins Peru presidency on fourth go", Japan Times (30 Jun 2026): "Keiko, whose name in Japanese means 'blessed child'...."

(2) "The Asian Who Won Peru", Asiaweek, Volume 16, p. 27 (1990): "His four children have both Japanese and Spanish Christian names"

(3) Kimura, Rei. Alberto Fujimori; el presidente que se atrevió a sonar, p. 44 (Ediciones Felou, 2005): "Fue extraño que Fujimori hubiera puesto nombres japoneses a todos sus hijos...."

(4) Kimura, Rei. Alberto Fujimori of Peru, p. 45 (Bangkok Book House, 2017): "Fujimori had Japanese names for all his children....Not only did he give them Japanese names, he also ensured that these names were entered in the official registration records." Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

But I don't see any reason to single out Keiko Fukimori especially as she was born in Peru and speaks Spanish as her native language.
She's being singled out because her grandparents immigrated from Japan 3 generations ago and her names are uncommon in Peru, while completely ignoring the fact that her name perfectly follows Hispanic/Spanish naming custom to the T. RachelTensions (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

If you would like to put into the hatnote that "her name perfectly follows Hispanic/Spanish naming custom to the T" then please do. Just don't contradict reliable sources by saying she has a hispanic or non-Japanese name. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I plan to go ahead and write the hatnote as follows: "Her full name follows Hispanic/Spanish naming customs so the first/paternal surname is Fujimori and the second/maternal surname is Higuchi." This is accurate, and does not contradict our reliable sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I repeated this proposal at the BLP’s talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant Your proposal and the current wording of the hatnote practically means the same thing though. In the current hatnote wording, the use of this in the sentence "In this Hispanic American name" is a demonstrative adjective which refers to the whole personal name (given name and surname(s) included). That being said, I do understand your point and wouldn't mind tweaking the hatnote for Fujimori and other Hispanic American's subjects on Wikipedia for the following wording which is spun off the formatting used for the East Slavic names hatnote:

In this name that follows Hispanic American naming customs, the paternal surname is Fujimori and the maternal surname is Higuchi.

Though I strongly oppose the usage of your previous proposed wording which was: In her full name, the first or paternal surname is Fujimori and the second or maternal family name is Higuchi, per naming customs in Peru. The last part is divisive and unnecessarily bureaucratic, as we would have to implement that for every single other Hispanic American from different countries in Hispanic America, which would be confusing to a general reader hence why we simplify it by grouping it into a single term where all countries in Hispanic America use the same naming conventions.

Though I have to point out that your sources for your argument are flawed as they refer to the given names of Alberto's children, which is a personal decision/choice. By your logic, for people like Tareck El Aissami or Carlos the Jackal, are they no longer Hispanic American because their parents gave them names of different origins? As a third-generation Peruvian of Japanese descent, we can assume that she has a mix of given names due to a personal choice made by Alberto and Susana when she was born to honour their heritage (assuming), but just because she has Japanese names mixed into her full name does not just magically remove the fact that she has a Hispanic American full name (given and surnames) altogether as stipulated by law and that she is: 1. Born in and a citizen of Peru, and 2. Her notability stems from being a Peruvian subject (in this case a politician). Subjects having different ethnic names is a representation of the diversity in the region, and having different surnames is notable but ultimately irrelevant as they have long-settled into Hispanic American countries and therefore is regarded as having Hispanic American full names. Also names are names in the end of the day, and many names have different meanings and origins which get mixed into different cultures due to immigration and what not, so all in all, it's not that deep.

Anyways, @RachelTensions, Nil Einne, WMrapids, ColomPeruvian, NatGertler, Rushtheeditor, AdaLarry, and WhisperToMe: and any other editors, your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! SpyroeBM (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I support your proposal to modify the hatnote so it says, “In this name that follows Hispanic American naming customs, the paternal surname is Fujimori and the maternal surname is Higuchi.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that "naming customs" is a good way of putting it. Names of people in Hispanic America can come from many ethnic origins. The point is that the naming structure is "Given names" then "father's last name" and "mother's last name". WhisperToMe (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• I am not against changing the hat note, but it must be changed in the template, for all people. The claims that it is "false" or "unsourced" to call it a Hispanic American name are too far. Is it not the surname of a Hispanic American person? Are people from Latin American countries outsiders if their surname is not González Martínez? Does a surname even have a nationality? Even surnames from Spain came from somewhere else first, whether Celtic, Germanic, Latin, Arab, Hebrew. The assertion that "The present issue rarely arises, because Spanish naming customs are almost always applied to Spanish names. This BLP is unusual in that regard" is demonstrably false: Sheinbaum, Bukele, Kast, Fox, Boric and Bachelet are living (former) presidents in Latin America. In fact, of the last nine on list of presidents of Chile, only Lagos and Piñera have a Spanish primary surname. How about something like "In this name that follows Hispanic American customs, X is the paternal surname and Y the maternal surname". Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Usually the template works fine the way it is, because the vast majority of people who have Hispanic American formatting also have typical Hispanic American names. But I support solving the problem either way: by doing a custom hatnote or by changing the specific hatnote at Template:Family name hatnote. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Another issue about Keiko Fujimori BLP

• There's another naming issue with the Keiko Fujimori BLP. Her name in Japanese characters is currently placed above her profile photo. We would never put Chuck Schumer's name in Hebrew above his photo. Nor put Andrew Yang's name in Chinese characters above his photo. They were both born in the Americas, just like Keiko Fujimori was. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. In fact, her page on the Japanese Wikipedia is ja:ケイコ・フジモリ — written in katakana (used for foreign loanwords) instead of kanji (which would be used for a native name). Her name is Japanese etymologically but it isn't a "Japanaese name" in terms of writing, since she is a Peruvian citizen and the government would document her name in Latin characters. Maybe, if she has used the kanji version of her name in her personal life, it could be included in the "Early life" section, but it shouldn't be put front-and-centre like it is now. Same goes for every member of the Fujimori family, actually, with the possible exception of Alberto, since he was a Japanese citizen. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Heritage names can also be used/mentioned later in life (for example, Chanel Miller talks about her Chinese name in her memoirs; she has Chinese heritage from her mother), but they can be put on the side in an infobox while they don't need to be in the lead (an exception is if ethnic identity is very important in a person's notability). WhisperToMe (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  I really don't see why jawiki's MOS for titles should have any bearing on what we put in our infoboxes. That same article has "Japanese name: 藤森 恵子" in the lead before even her date of birth, so they would disagree with your logic here. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's not just the title, but throughout the body. That jawiki's use of フジモリ (not just in the title, but throughout the body) rather than 藤森 indicates that even in Japanese, Keiko Fujimori's name is perceived as "foreign", that the native form of her name is in Latin characters, and that highlighting the kanji form of her name (apparently used, but extremely uncommon) on our end is thus a hypercorrection. Tucking it into an efn is OK, though I would rather see it included in the body in some fashion. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've taken out kanji versions of these names with a backlink to this conversation, including Alberto, who also has a Kana version of the name as the title. While I appreciate the larger point you're making i think it's worth noting we we do get this sort of weirdness on all sorts of articles - it wasn't long ago that someone removed similar from Mel Brooks' article. Morwen (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Against. Her name possesses both Japanese and Hispanic (Peruvian) elements. Dual cultural background is common for immigrants of other ethnicities. ~2026-41738-02 (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Against including the Japanese characters above the photo? Or against removing them? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Against removal. No consensus yet. ~2026-41689-43 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Fortunately I don't need consensus to remove unsourced information from BLPs. Morwen (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:ONUS also applies. Consensus is needed to include this inappropriate material. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Keiko Fujimori is not an immigrant, so that doesn't apply. — Kawnhr (talk) — Kawnhr (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Dmitry Volkov (entrepreneur)

The article published accusations based on a journalistic investigation, which is written on interviews and anonymous sources. There are no secondary authoritative sources. The information violates the rule:WP:BLP, WP:RS. ~2026-41883-08 (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Recent BLPN post from June 2026. JFHJr (㊟) 03:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Some coverage of the investigations is DUE as there are two investigative journalism reports and at least two Maltese newspapers have picked it up, but the way it's described needs revising by condensing down and not having separate sections for each investigation. I will work on that. A campaigning temporary account is also adding material to Catfishing and other pages about "Corporate catfishing" using an unreliable website and as a WP:COATRACK about Volkov's Social Discovery Group, which I and others have reverted. There's lots of clearly SEO/AI-generated/paid-marketing sources about Volkov cluttering up search results, so finding genuine reliable sources needs careful attention. Fences&Windows 08:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Shri Thanedar

I'm a politics buff in California. I have no connection with anyone in Michigan. Read up on Thanedar's contested primary out of curiosity. Last third of this article is blatantly unfair, and loaded against Thanedar, even if everything in it can be proven. It has clearly been posted by someone favoring his opponent. Sorely needs balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-41721-00 (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Link: Shri Thanedar. As said above, "Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input." Saying "this is biased, fix it" is difficult to address without specific examples of the content that you deem inappropriate. Please discuss this on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

BLPSPS and the open letter

WP:BLPSPS begins with "Never use self-published sources (including books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, or social network posts) as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves."

Particularly as we approach the mid-term elections in the US, I wonder if we have an established consensus on how to handle the open letter. In particular, when we have:

• a newspaper article that says something like "Three hundred people signed an open letter criticizing Paul Politician for ____", and
• a copy of the letter itself on a social media website (which we would normally consider self-published),

I wonder whether it's acceptable for the Wikipedia article to WP:CITE both the news article and the letter as reliable sources for a statement in a Wikipedia article about the open letter's existence and/or contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

If it's in a secondary source, why would it be necessary to cite the SPS? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

A news article might or might not be a secondary source; most news articles are WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I'm assuming here that the open letter itself is not notable/the subject of the article (not in Category:Open letters, for example), but instead is public criticism of a named BLP. Consider, e.g., Trump administration needs to stop ‘public harassment’ of Fauci and scientists, open letter says in The Guardian today, which I found just now by asking Google News about open letters. A whole book could be written on the relationship between Trump and Fauci, and some grad student may well write one some day. But if that open letter was self-published on a website (and not, e.g., as an op ed in a newspaper), could we link to that letter? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, then, if it's in a reputably published source, why would we need to cite the SPS? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

People might want to read the letter for themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

There's a subtle dictinction between using as a source and providing a link - conceptually we can provide a link without using it as a source, even if the actual practice of how we use references makes that awkward. Morwen (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is not to be a link directory. If we had a widespread practice of citing primary sources just as reading material and not actually to support any information, maybe, but that is frowned upon. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but it could be used to support certain statements as long as we have a secondary source to cover WP:DUE for covering the open letter at all (per WP:BLPPRIMARY, Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.) We couldn't use it for BLP statements such as "the letter called Senator Bobby a doofus" or "Jane Namesigner signed the document", but it could cover things like, say, the specific title of the document. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

If secondary sources actually discuss the letter, then I see this as akin to WP:BLPPRIMARY. We shouldn't use public documents to support claims about a living person, but when the document itself is covered by reliable, secondary sources, we may augment those secondary sources with the public document.

Of course, may doesn't mean have to. Just as it says in BLPPRIMARY, we have to consider other sourcing policies. Is the letter widely covered in secondary sources, especially newspapers of record? Or is it only mentioned by one or two situational sources? Do any secondary sources reproduce the entire letter, making them a better source? I think the answer will always depend on the available secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Several editors here have commented on secondary sources, but none on independent sources. Most news coverage, and all breaking news, is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean good, and (though I think most editors don't realize this) a secondary source could be someone's blog post analyzing the effect of their own previous blog post.

With that distinction in mind, is it more important for the later/non-letter source to be:

1. Published by an organization with a professional publishing structure? ("not self-published")
2. Published by someone with no ties to the criticized BLP and/or to the BLPs who wrote the original self-published letter? ("independent")
3. Containing analytical material about the letter? ("secondary")

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Kent Beck

The tone of a few of the sections is not written from a neutral point of view (WP:BLPSTYLE).

A few examples:

• ‘His work has shaped how software is designed, tested, and built for more than three decades, making him one of the most influential figures in the history of software engineering practice.’

• ‘In the 2020s, Beck has worked on two distinct projects that reflect the breadth of his interests.‘

• ‘In March 2026 he launched Still Burning, a podcast exploring what it means to work as an engineer when tools change faster than understanding can follow — continuing what he describes as a career-long mission of helping geeks feel safe in the world.‘

• ‘The one-year delivery target was nearly achieved, with actual delivery being only a couple of months late. The project became the proving ground for practices that would reshape software development over the following decade.’

• ‘In March 2026, he launched Still Burning, a podcast providing honest conversation about what it actually feels like to work in software at a moment of rapid change.’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrmont (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

agree. some of it sounds AI-generated. it is also poorly sourced. Rainsage (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The first assertion is, in my opinion, true and well attested. The fourth is a good paraphrase of Beck’s own account. I think the second and third could be tightened. Most of the text predates LLMs. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Fatima Hamed

I'm not sure if this is the right place to go to as this is a cross wiki problem but somehow this image has come to represent this politician, including on Wikidata so it is automatically embedded on other pages. The photo of the model in 2017 never claims to be Hamed, who would be 39 then, and who visibly is not the same person . I know there's WP:AGF but I can't see any other explanation than someone just found an image of a woman in a hijab and thought it would be a laugh. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This image isn't used at all on en.wiki. It was added to the Wikidata entry for Hamed earlier this year by a temp account. I've now reverted the Wikidata addition; so far as I can tell all of the entries on other language Wikipedias using this image for Hamed were pulling from Wikidata so it should no longer appear on them either. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yfke Sturm — Epstein section (BLPCRIME / UNDUE)

I would like uninvolved editors to look at the "Epstein Controversy" section of Yfke Sturm.

Disclosure: I have a personal connection to the subject and a conflict of interest. I am not being paid, and I am not editing the article directly.

The section quotes two lines from emails released in the Epstein files: that Sturm "owes him two girls", and that she "will make it up to him in Paris". Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted sex trafficker, so to an ordinary reader those quotes imply that Sturm was involved in procuring or supplying girls to him, in other words complicity in sex trafficking. Sturm has never been charged with, arrested for, or convicted of any such offence, and the sources describe the emails only as "allegedly" hers. In my view reproducing these specific quotes runs against WP:BLPCRIME, and also WP:BLPSTYLE (sensationalism) and WP:UNDUE.

I am not asking to remove the matter. A neutral version can keep the reliably sourced facts, that NRC Handelsblad reported a 2012 email exchange said to involve her and Epstein, and her own public response calling it "naive" and "a serious error of judgement", while dropping the sensational quotes and the standalone "Controversy" heading (WP:CSECTION suggests merging it into "Private life").

I raised this as an edit request on the article talk page on 22 June 2026. A reviewer asked me to explain the BLPCRIME concern, which I did on 29 June, and I reopened the request as asked. There has been no further action in about a month, so I am bringing it here for wider input. Talk-page discussion: Talk:Yfke Sturm#BLP/BLPCRIME concern: Epstein section. Thanks. ~~~~ TMeijer86 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The current version is neutrally written, not sensationalising, DUE, and based in reliable sources. Many more reputable Dutch outlets carried the story in detail. The article reflects their analysis, not Wikipedia's. Fences&Windows 20:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior

A user who has not used his/her real name, Moscow Connection, has insulted me in this discussion page. This person has to learn how to behave online. If she/he continues his harassments, I will ask the blockage of his/her user account. Thank you for your comprehension. Taraneh Javanbakht~2026-42217-92 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the insults. Discussing notability is about coverage in independent reliable sources, not your worth in any field. I'll add a note asking for courtesy blanking of the discussion when it is closed. Fences&Windows 16:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Coordinated removal of verified descriptors in BLP, active litigation context

Coordinated removal of verified descriptors in BLP there is an active litigation context, the subject of a biography with 28 defendants in active federal litigation including famous law firms (corruption, fraud, civil rights). Over the past weeks, editors have: Removed "entrepreneur" despite 100+ reliable third-party sources, removed "American" (dual citizenship, verified) witch is relevant to jurisdiction and nominated the page for deletion, retained only "actress," which supports a misleading narrative. This appears coordinated to undermine credibility in ongoing proceedings. The removals violate BLP policy: verified, neutral, sourced content stripped to engineer a damaging portrayal. Requesting experienced editor assessment for: page protection, COI notice, restoration of sourced descriptors. Page: Adriana Ferreyr Edit history shows pattern:

1. Temporary account ~2026-41545-85 (talk · contribs) made a single substantial edit removing approximately 12,437 bytes, including material supported by cited sources, and restored a substantially shorter version of the biography.
2. Augmented Seventh (talk · contribs) reversed that rollback approximately one minute later.
3. Purring maggot (talk · contribs) later discussed the temporary account's rollback with Augmented Seventh.
4. Purring maggot then restored the shortened revision selected by the temporary account and removed additional material.
5. Shortly afterward, Purring maggot nominated the article for deletion.

Robot100 (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any connection to the user who has made a very similar complaint over on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Adriana_Ferreyr_-_possible_coordinated_editing_and_undisclosed_COI? Morwen (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Sigh... For anyone viewing, see WP:COIN and AfD for context. Long story short, somebody pointed out AI slop on the AI noticeboard and I went to go deal with it. It was indeed promotional garbage and not, in fact, supported by basically any "reliable third party sources" and since that moment, instead of addressing the content issues with me or on the article talk page in a sane and reasonable manner, three single-purpose accounts (User:Robot100, User:Fresafaraz, User:DavidDawsonTreeoflife) have suddenly appeared to fill the AfD discussion with AI slop and drag me to various noticeboards. Please also see Robot100's talk page for literally over a decade's worth of COI warnings that they have never responded to. ^purring_maggot (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I just duckblocked the reporter and closed the COIN thread. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Reform UK financial allegations

We have a disagreement at Talk:Reform UK financial allegations#Fiona Cottrell as to whether the mentions of the name of an otherwise non-notable woman in the lead and in the 'George and Fiona Cottrell', 'Richard Tice' and 'Reform UK financing' sections of the short article, contravene WP:BLPCRIME, particularly the sentence which says Names or files of individuals identified as persons of interest should not be included in the article as this person is implicated as being a person of interest in the article prose of the sections mentioned.

Can anyone help us to resolve this, here, or there, please? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's going to depend on whether WP:LOWPROFILE is appropriate here. I did a quick google and, from a notability perspective, it looks WP:BLP1E for Fiona Cottrell. WP:LOWPROFILE would not apply to Richard Tice or other non low-profile figures involved. I will say that this line of the Guardian article Fiona Cottrell, who lives in Worcestershire and once dated King Charles sort of problematizes low profile. The essay doesn't say anything about former romantic prospects of sitting monarchs but I'd say anyone connected enough to catch King Charles' eye is probably not what we would call a low-profile person. However reasonable people could disagree. Consider me on the fence for this one. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not Tice that I am concerned with, just Cottrell. There's no evidence I can find of her being high-profile before this story, even under her maiden name. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's relevant. If we're mentioning the fact that she made the donation that is being investigated by the police, we can hardly not name her, unless you want to say something like "...George Cottrell reportedly transferred £2m to his mother who then donated it..." which would be a bit ... odd, wouldn't it? And it's not just the Guardian either, it's covered everywhere and even the Telegraph names her in its subheader when covering the police investigation . Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It is relevant because it is the test specified in WP:BLPCRIME. We don't need to mention her relationship to anyone. I don't think BLPCRIME has an exemption if you don't have the imagination to create a phrase that says it anonymously. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

What you appear to be saying here is that we could never name non-public people in any article where there was the slightest chance that a crime might have been committed, even if their name is covered by multiple RS. That would seem to be stretching BLPCRIME to its maximum. We would have the bizarre situation where it would be fine to name someone non-public who was part of a news story, only to then have to scrub their name from all related articles if a police investigation started related to that story. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, under her maiden name, her dating King Charles and her modeling career (which affected the relationship) received coverage. so I actually don't think LOWPROFILE applies here. Nor, anymore, BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Not enough coverage to qualify as high-profile though. WP:LOWPROFILE defines that as:

Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well.

It better fits low profile:

May have appeared on or been featured on such a show without their consent – e.g. "ambush journalism". May have been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication. May have been interviewed by a major news source as a "mouthpiece" – i.e., as part of their job as a spokesperson for an employer, representing that party and not themselves.

-- DeFacto (talk). 15:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

She dated a then-crown-prince who broke up with her because she posed for Penthouse. These are not low profile actions. I'm sorry. I take BLP very seriously and am generally pretty strict about it but this is a high-profile figure. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Correct, she was already in the public eye. She also donated $2 million to a political party in the UK, where the threshold for anonymous donation is £500. Party donors have no expectation of privacy. The very act of giving such a large donation makes someone not "low profile". Fences&Windows 19:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I had no hand in the development of BLPCRIME, but assume that clause was intended to be enforced. If we decide to ignore it, presumably we can also reword it to reflect this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately BLPCRIME doesn't say that names should be kept out, only that editors must consider keeping the name out if the person is low profile. Many past discussion have hinged on whether the name is often published in reliable sources, and the name included if it has been. Personally I would like BLPCRIME to be stronger, at the moment it seems basically toothless (if not pointless). In this specific case I'd prefer the use of the term 'relative' other inclusion of her name, only saying 'mother' seems a bit dehumanising. But ultimately BLPCRIME doesn't stop the inclusion of the name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I prefer a strong interpretation of BLPCRIME that, for low-profile people, we actively should exclude their names from ongoing criminal investigations even when sources use it. But a notable model/aristocrat who has posed in international magazines and dated the heir to a head of state before becoming a political mega-donor is the opposite of low profile. I was on the fence before I saw the material about her under her maiden name but that kicked me off the fence completely. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223, fair enough then if she was already high-profile public figure before the subject of this article became a story. If she was, we should be able to create a BLP article about her life given her fame before this happened. It's hard to understand why she doesn't already have one given what you wrote. To help us with our research, can you list all the RSes from her pre-political-donations life that you've come across please. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I already provided one. Simonm223 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223, did you only find the one? WP:LOWPROFILE suggests that for "high-profile" we need:

Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well

For "low-profile" it says:

May have appeared on or been featured on such a show without their consent – e.g. "ambush journalism". May have been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication. May have been interviewed by a major news source as a "mouthpiece" – i.e., as part of their job as a spokesperson for an employer, representing that party and not themselves.

WP:BASIC, part of the notability guidelines for BLP article creation, says:

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

I'd suggest that currently, with just that single (very short) source, we have not shown that she was anything other than very low profile before this event. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a case where IMO it's not going to make a big difference whatever we do. Her relationship to George Cottrell is an integral part of the story and not something we can exclude. Therefore naming or not naming her does not make a big difference. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

BTW I'd disagree on simply calling her a relative. That doesn't sufficiently capture the closeness of their relationship. Close relative or immediate family member is better, still IMO doesn't convey enough. There's a difference between a sibling, parent and child. I don't think it matters which parent so I'd be fine with just parent. Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Khoury, Samar (October 23, 2019). "Separate but Together: Twin Sisters Break Ground in Construction Industry | Professional WOMAN's Magazine". Professional Woman’s Magazine. Retrieved March 13, 2023.

The link to this article goes to a spam site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-42247-30 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done This was apparently in reference to a source linked from Cheryl McKissack Daniel. I have replaced the link with a wayback machine link. Jahaza (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Marjorie Decker

This article has clearly been edited in a defamatory way that is biased towards her opponent. Her opponent's name, MacKay, appears more often than the name Marjorie. In total, the "Notable criticisms and disputes" section takes up 838 words in a 1709 word article (49%), despite notable problems with this section.

"Opposition to committee roll call amendment"

This section includes the following paragraph: "In 2022, a non-binding ballot question organized by her later political opponent Evan MacKay[3] was presented to voters in her district, asking whether their representative should support changes to House rules to make each legislator's committee vote available on the Legislature's website. 94.2% of voters in Decker's district supported the measure." This is misleading to include in the "Notable criticisms and disputes," because as the article acknowledges, Decker makes all of her committee's votes available online.

"Memorial Drive closure controversy"

This controversy centers on a release of statements of Rebecca Tepper which claim that politicians privately contradicted their public statements on the closure. As the section acknowledges, linking to a Cambridge Day article, Secretary Tepper's claims were riddled with factual inaccuracies and were widely criticized as false. Additionally, the X (Twitter) link claims that Secretary Tepper apologized for the misleading nature of these statements and any confusion that they have caused. Given these factors, this section should be removed from the article.

"Berman Tabacco"

The section that discusses her second job being controversial uses a link to a quote by her opponent as evidence. It also notes that "Berman Tabacco works against large pharmaceutical companies, while the firm represented plaintiffs suing pharmaceutical companies over antitrust, fraud and damages." Given the fact that the only evidence of a controversy is her opponent's claims, placing this section in the "Notable criticisms and disputes" unfairly biases this article.

In addition to removing questionable information, I believe that more information should be added to this article, including the following section:

Under "Political career" Decker’s first documented political activism occurred while she was a student at Cambridge Rindge and Latin during the AIDS epidemic. She worked with a group conducting AIDS education, making awareness buttons, and distributing approximately 1,500 condoms. (already source 3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauBeans (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Marjorie Decker

You need to attempt to resolve these concerns on the article talk page before coming here; you may also use the edit request process to propose edits. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

You've already made one edit request, please continue to do so. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

References

GENDERID and before-transition names in other articles when the subject was not notable pre-transition

I'll probably never end up making this article, because I am very lazy and have many unfinished drafts, but it's in the cards and I am unsure what I'd do with this situation so I thought I'd ask.

There is a notable documentary film. One of the key figures documented in this film (they're not the main focus but they are part of the main cast) later transitioned and goes by a new name. Under this name, they became an activist and currently have a Wikipedia article. There is no RS connecting them to the name they went by when the film was made, and they were not notable at all prior to transitioning, so it is also a privacy issue.

How would I include them in the cast list to comply with MOS:GENDERID?

Using the old name is deadnaming. Using the new name would make no sense to the reader and would be unverified as I have no sources connecting the two. And connecting them to the old name when their article does not also seems like deadnaming, or at the very least a way to direct the reader to find their deadname. I also have no sources connecting the two (though it is the unavoidable conclusion of the documentary). They are one of the main people involved in the film, and I cannot just leave them out of the cast list. Would I just pretend they are separate people (which still kind of is deadnaming)? There feels like no way to do this that is not an issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

If there is literally no source connecting the two, I think you actually do have to treat them as separate people, yes. MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply because it says Use the name and gendered words (man, woman, person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. We can't be the ones to make a connection that none of the sources do; as you've described it, your conclusion that the two are the same person is really just, from a policy perspective, your WP:OR. And even from the perspective of the spirit of MOS:GENDERID... the purpose isn't to avoid deadnaming because it is some magic law that will turn the subject into a pumpkin if we use the wrong name; the purpose is to minimize harm by respecting their wishes. If no sources at all make the connection, it's reasonable to infer that their wishes are not "claim all previous publications under their old name" but "discard their old identity, with no connection to it at all." That isn't, like, something we would do just because they want to, but if they've managed a complete wall of separation between their old and new names (and the associated identities) to the point where no sources connect them at all, I think it contributes to the idea that the spirit of MOS:GENDERID would be to respect that division and not use OR to breach it ourselves (which we can't do anyway.) All that said, I would look real carefully first, because any reliable sourcing connecting them at all would resolve this in the other direction. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

One of the biggest issues I have is your assertion that ther is no RS connecting the person to the documenatry. How can you verifiably say the transitioned person is the person in the documentary if they have different names?... I assume your basing it off looking at them? The best thing to do without establishing a reliable source connection is to list the old name and not hyperlink it because we cannot verifiably say who they are. Essentially treat them like two different people.

Otherwise, GENDERID says: In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), and it goes on to say add a note if they were formerly notable under the deadname. This would suggest ommitting the old name and just using the new name if you choose to connect these two people. All I will add is leaving a note saying they were credited under the old name may be appropriate if you deem it contextually relevant (as in the reader will be confused otherwise). R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It is impossible to answer why this is without referring to the specific facts of the documentary which I do think might be a privacy issue for this person. It is not based off of looks but the whole premise of why they were interviewed. They acknowledged it in social media postings, as well, but not in a way that is usable here (it wasn't them saying it). And even there was usable sourcing, wouldn't it be problematic to connect the person to this old name when they weren't notable under it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you need to be more specific if you want actionable help. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to be more specific without committing a BLP violation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Then perhaps don't mention the subject at all. If they were non-notable under their dead name and if you believe it would be a BLP violation just to mention what documentary they appeared in then it seems the best course is to just not mention their involvement. Certainly this is not an appropriate instance to randomly deadname someone. At least based on the minimal information in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

You can't not mention one of the main people in the film. Describing the events would make no sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we have to question whether this person was truly "not notable" under the old name, if they had a role of import in a notable documentary. It may not be "notable" enough to generate a Wikipedia page on its own (being a documentary, WP:NACTOR doesn't directly apply, but this would be halfway to meeting that on those terms), but I'm not sure that "notable" in MOS:GENDERID is meant to be taken specifically as meeting such tests. If the matter in the documentary is about that person, then that seems to be significant coverage. If coverage of the documentary at that time discusses the film's material about that person in reasonable depth, then that is multiple sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

what do you mean by "don't mention the subject at all." If I understand it rightly we're not talking about the person's article but a hypothetical article about the documentary they were in as DEADNAME. suppose this documentary already had an article and they were mentioned in the cast list as DEADNAME already - perhaps added by someone who didn't know about NEWNAME at all, what do you do with that? are you deleting them from that cast list? How would you explain that decision to anyone without also committing a BLP violation? Morwen (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I see two choices: write the article mentioning them by their prior name with no mention of their current name and gender, or don't write it. You can't airbrush someone out of a documentary. You might ask an admin active in BLP areas to have a conversation by email, because concrete details can sometimes help. Also, once this discussion is over it should be courtesy blanked so nobody can follow the breadcrumbs if you do create the article. Fences&Windows 20:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

If they must be in then it should be under their correct name per MOS:GENDERID. This is being made too complicated by an editor who insists on holding back relevant information but nothing they've said suggests we should be breaking our MOS here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

You've glossed over how linking the two names would be WP:OR, so not allowed. In this circumstance, they may not use the current name and ID. Fences&Windows 20:21, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we can assume that is a correct assessment with the information before us. Frankly I find the withholding of key information problematic here. I would discourage deadnaming people on such paltry information as we have here. Simonm223 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

How would you suggest that I talk about this without committing a BLP violation? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

A possible suggestion: what is this person's current name? You've already said they're notable under that name so, at least assuming there are any sources saying they're transgender at all, it shouldn't be a privacy violation to say that. Loki (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• As I alluded to above, my problem with using their post-transition name in a way that creates a connection between identities that isn't present in any of the sources is that we may, in fact, be outing them by doing that (ie. they may actually want to keep that older identity separate, rather than claim it under their new name.) That's an actual BLP issue with actual risk of harm. And while I can't say whether the information for this specific case is accurate or complete, in a general sense I know of some trans people who are in that position, people who completely discarded an at least somewhat prominent old identity to the extent that it isn't generally known that they're the same person - albeit perhaps not ones who have attracted enough coverage to have a Wikipedia article (at which point maintaining that divide becomes difficult.) If the identities are generally separate in the sources, then we do need a source to connect them, not just because connecting them is WP:OR but because connecting two identities that are broadly separate in the sources in this context is something that could plausibly harm the subject under WP:BLP. Also consider that if we make the connection ourselves, even if we avoid deadnaming while doing so, we would still be effectively attaching their deadname to their current name, without any actual sources supporting the connection. --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  I just don't see such a circumstance also producing a cast listing that is encyclopedically relevant enough to necessitate including a deadname. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Let's try a simpler thought experiment in which both BLP articles already exist, about people who were famous in different decades. Or maybe Wikipedia even says one of them is dead now (not just nominally, but corporeally). The twist is that you and you alone know they are multiple identities of the same person, but you have no way to prove it. What do you do? ―cobaltcigs 04:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You ignore it. Wikipedia is based on verifiable, sourced information. It is not a place for revelation of secrets. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

"Joe Schmoe" was listed in the cast of "Big Movie". You believe "Joe Schmoe" later become "Lisa Pizza" who has an article but there would be no legitimate reason to mention the name "Joe Schmoe" in the "Lisa Pizza" article. Just list the cast member Joe Schmoe without any wikilink in the "Big Movie" article. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with DIYeditor. If we don't have a reliable source that Joe is Lisa, we can't say Joe is Lisa. You may know otherwise, but that's called WP:OR. --GRuban (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect dates?

The statement reads that Joel Rifkin was adopted in 1959 when he was three years old. Yet his birth year is 1959. Which is correct? ~2026-42543-59 (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Article says he was adopted in 1959 when he was three weeks old. There is no contradiction. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I am talking about shebaz sharif is not any more pakistani prime mister

shebaz sharif is no more pakistani pm ~2026-42520-16 (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Concerns about sourcing and neutrality in the Mark Camilleri article

I would like to request assistance from editors regarding the article on Mark Camilleri. There is issue of neutrality, balance and omission of significant events covered in a very reputable sources.

The same reliable sources is used by the one editor only when the topic is positive, but avoids the facts -where the Mark Camilleri was fined for contempt of court and defamation, distributing the pornographic content and presenting every deed where he paid penalty or got convicted in a different light.

After some observation, i have a concerns that the editor :~2026-42534-19 has a conflict of interest and takes any edit personal and does not want to discuss, and using the attack language and Labeling- like you are Pro-Labor or you are Maltese Mafia - irrelevant of any edits done by editors. Andrew Farrugia (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I've added extended comfirmed protection due to edit warring and apparent sockpuppetry (from the talk page). Everyone involved can reach consensus on the talk page rather than warring. Fences&Windows 20:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated indeed. Andrew Farrugia (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Oba Femi

This page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oba_Femi, lists his birthday wrong. His birthday is what appears on his official University athletics page - which override main stream reports. Main stream reports are reporting in kayfabe. WWE bills him older than his real life age. Source: https://rolltide.com/sports/xctrack/roster/isaac-odugbesan/7577 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-42763-23 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

"Gaza genocide" in BLP articles

After reverting A bag of many boiled potatoes (talk · contribs) changing "Gaza war" to "Gaza genocide" in Patricia Heaton, Louis Mosley, Michael McFaul, Abelardo de la Espriella.

I expect there is more that I missed. Should further action be taken with this editor beyond the discussion at User_talk:A_bag_of_many_boiled_potatoes#July_2026?

I briefly looked for similar edits from other editors. I didn't find any so blatant, but did find some questionable content that included "Gaza genocide" in the first 100 results from Special:WhatLinksHere/Gaza_genocide:

• in Gwyneth Paltrow
• in Leonardo DiCaprio
• in Guy Pearce

Do others agree with the content removal for these three articles? Do these demonstrate a need to search further? --Hipal (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your actions and further action like ANI and blocking of A_bag_of_many_boiled_potatoes. --Malerooster (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Only if the majority of sources actually called in "genocide" in that context. Saying that someone supported a genocide without an explicit reference that they did is a very serious BLP violation. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I've started an ANI discussion concerning A bag of many boiled potatoes here.

Is there any way to easily find the overlap between this editor's edits and the Gaza genocide articles linked above? I expect more cleanup is needed. --Hipal (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

If you remove a sentence which is long-standing content and your removal is reverted, you should follow the instructions at WP:status quo by tagging the sentence and starting a discussion on the talk page. If you have a problem with the term "Gaza genocide" then, rather than removing the whole sentence, rephrase it to replace the term with something with which you are more comfortable. Burrobert (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Concerning BLP content, WP:status quo says Always remove unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious. --Hipal (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes

Editors are engaging in maliciously willful BLP vandalism by falsely claiming that the Trial of Michael Flynn ended in convictions - in contravention of actual reality. ~2026-42770-90 (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes ~2026-42770-90 (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on the talk page. (See the note 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." Please keep this in mind in the future.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This user is correct; he had pled guilty, but was trying to withdraw it when some issues with the judge hearing the case came up; he was eventually pardoned so the proceedings were ended, he was never actually convicted. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that the TA is correct, and said so in the talk page discussion I opened. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The page makes clear that a guilty plea is eligible for this list, so user is incorrect to remove this (and is also edit warring without discussion) Andre🚐 17:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Then the page scope is inconsistent with the page title, and one of them should change. Even if someone has pleaded guilty, they're not convicted until they're sentenced. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The second sentence in List... states: It includes politicians who were convicted or pleaded guilty.... Flynn plead, filed to have it withdrawn, was pardoned, and the case was dismissed with the pardon not withdrawn. So it appears that the plea is intact. The Supreme Court ruled that accepting a pardon is "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it." Adakiko (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

But he was not sentenced, which is the conclusion of a criminal case. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Need to find more sources about Flynn but I'd note Joe Arpaio was also never sentenced but per Pardon of Joe Arpaio etc he was convicted despite his attempts to establish he wasn't. Nil Einne (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The same pardons article also says "law professor at Michigan State University, states that presidents sometimes (albeit rarely) grant pardons on the basis of innocence, and argues that if a president issues a pardon because they think an individual is innocent, then accepting that pardon would not be an admission of guilt." I presume Trump pardoned Flynn because he felt he was innocent(as with the Capitol rioters). 331dot (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

In any case simply accepting a pardon can't be enough to be added to the list otherwise Fauci etc would be eligible to be on such lists but I think we can all agree they're not. (Fauci isn't a politician but they won't be on any list of people convicted of something.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Adrian David Cheok

This is pure and utter libel — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-42815-96 (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Adrian David Cheok. Given the TA gutted the entire article on spurious grounds, without a more specific complaint there's little more to do here. FDW777 (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

There have been persist complaints from likely COI editors about this article. Nil Einne (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Urgent BLP removal request: Kala Master (gossip source, privacy violation)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am writing to request an urgent review of the Kala Master article under Wikipedia's strict policy for Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BLPPRIVACY). I represent the article's subject and have declared a conflict of interest. This is not a content dispute, but a request for enforcement of core BLP policy regarding poorly sourced and potentially defamatory personal information.

I am requesting the following specific, policy-mandated actions:

1. Remove Unreliable Source & Related Content

· Target Content: The citation currently marked as [15] in the "Personal life" section, which is:

 · "Tamil movies : Dancing sisters’ war dance against Sneha Archived 6 March 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Behindwoods.com (7 July 2006). Retrieved 2013-11-30."

· Associated Text: The sentence in the article that this citation supports: "soon after Kala and Brindha controversially made derogatory comments about Sneha's dancing ability to a magazine." · Action: Delete both the citation and the associated sentence. · Policy Justification:

 · WP:BLPGOSSIP: This source is a sensationalized tabloid blog post and does not meet the high standard of reliability required for a living person.
 · WP:BLPREMOVE: This policy explicitly states that any unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a living person must be removed immediately.
 · WP:BLPRS: Behindwoods.com is not a reliable source for contentious biographical claims.

2. Remove Former Marriage from Infobox

· Target Line: "Govindarajan (m.1997; div.1999)" under the "Spouses" field. · Action: Delete this specific line from the infobox. · Policy Justification:

 · WP:BLPPRIVACY: Brief, private personal matters, especially from decades ago, are not appropriate for the high-visibility infobox summary.
 · WP:UNDUE: This information gives undue weight to a minor and non-enduring biographical detail.

3. Standardize Infobox Field Name

· Current Label: Spouses · Requested Change: Spouse · Policy Justification: This is to ensure compliance with the standard parameters defined in Template:Infobox person.

Link to article for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kala_Master

Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent BLP matter. ~2026-42882-92 (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't entertain requests outsourced to AI, especially as they are known to misrepresent Wikipedia policies. Write this request yourself after you actually read up on policy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 04:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

---

Hi

I am representing kala master and i would like to request for some edits of the Kala Master article under Wikipedia's strict policy for Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BLPPRIVACY).

1. Remove Govindarajan (m.1997; div.1999) from spouses as this is a brief marriage and she is frustrated to get some annoying abusive calls.

2. Change the name spouses to spouse.

3. Remove the reference #15 as it breaches some privacy regarding her personal life and again she is getting threat calls

Please kindly acknowledge and make these changes ASAP.

Link to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kala_Master

Awaiting for your reply, thank you very much! ~2026-42882-92 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hi I am representing kala master and i would like to request for some edits of the Kala Master article under Wikipedia's strict policy for Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BLPPRIVACY). 1. Remove Govindarajan (m.1997; div.1999) from spouses as this is a brief marriage and she is frustrated to get some annoying abusive calls. 2. Change the name spouses to spouse. 3. Remove the reference #15 as it breaches some privacy regarding her personal life and again she is getting threat calls Please kindly acknowledge and make these changes ASAP. Link to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kala_Master Awaiting for your reply, thank you very much!kala master wiki edit request ~2026-42882-92 (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Most of this is non-actionable within Wikipedia's normal processes regardless of how many times you make the request. One thing I will say is that this source looks non-reliable and I'm going to go ahead and action that part of the request by removing the source and anything sole-sourced to it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I have removed that source. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Urgent BLP removal request: Kala Master (gossip source, privacy violation)

Hi I am representing kala master and i would like to request for some edits of the Kala Master article under Wikipedia's strict policy for Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BLPPRIVACY). Remove Govindarajan (m.1997; div.1999) from spouses as this is a brief marriage and she is frustrated to get some annoying abusive calls. Change the name spouses to spouse. Remove the reference #15 as it breaches some privacy regarding her personal life and again she is getting threat calls Please kindly acknowledge and make these changes ASAP. Link to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kala_Master

Awaiting for your reply, thank you very much! ~2026-42882-92 (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Accusation of "lying" against a BLP

An editor made this edit to 1993 Bombay Bombings which I reverted because:

• The quote he provided comes from an unreliable source (see black listing of its parent company at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_514#RfC:_Zee_News) which is bound to defame the opposition leaders (Sharad Pawar in this context). Two quotes have been provided, both of these quotes either: 1) summarizes Sharad Pawar statement, 2) concerns a broader subject; "When you are running a state or when you are part of the administration, you are required to lie at times for the larger public interest."

• The subject Sharad Pawar is a prominent BLP. There can be some debate id the source is specifically quoting him admitting the specific lie. However, even then Wikipedia does not use strong language when better wording can be used, just like it has been at the moment. See 1993_Bombay_bombings#Bombings. The current version does not ignore the misleading nature of the statement that was made 22 years ago.

THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 09:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Vikram Sampath

This article states that one work (a two volume biography) written by Sampath had "largely negative reception in academic circles", added in June 2023 by user Sahinshah121 here with the edit summary "give summary of section content." On 3 August 2026, I noticed it was uncited and was in fact quite contrary to the rest of the section, which detailed a mostly mixed reception, so I added a {{citation needed}} template here. Then Sahinshah121 added this news article as citation; but the news article does not say that the work had "a largely negative reception in academic circles" or variations thereof.

'Largely', per cambridge dictionary, means 'almost completely' (similar words would be 'mostly', 'majorly', 'nearly entirely' etc.)—'largely negative' thus means mostly unfavourable or predominantly bad. The cited news article says that the book "has invited the ire of several left-wing historians", naming these in the next paragraph: Ananya Chakravarti, Rohit Chopra and Audrey Truschke. The plagiarism accusations (mostly against a 2017 article, but to a much smaller extent also against the first of the two volumes) of these three are already covered in the Vikram Sampath#Plagiarism Allegations section. As I noted on the article talk page, the first volume alone has 43 citations from various academics, 19 citations since 2023, i.e. since one year after the plagiarism accusations. The second volume further has 11 citations. The news article says that 3 'left-wing historians' were angry at the work. Can we use these three to mean that almost all academics received the work negatively? UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Mariéme Jamme

Could someone please look at "Mariéme Jamme" and at this: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Chocolatewade. (I initially reported the edits by Chocolatewade on that noticeboard, but no one seems to notice or to care.)

I've just decided to revert Chocolatewade edits myself, and I don't know if what I did is right. But the information Chocoladewade removed was in the article from the very first version written by HaeB, and I don't think it was right to just whitewash a Wikipedia article like this, especially using something as strange-looking as Classe-export.com () as a source. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking at Chocolatewade's contributions, "Mariéme Jamme" was the first article he "seriously" edited. He had just registered several days before that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

And look at his his first edit to "Moez Kassam": . --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss BLP issues, not editor behavior issues. And I'm not surprised that you didn't get much response at WP:COIN, because you fail to bring any evidence or claim of a conflict of interest, merely years-old edits you didn't like. You made no claim of what position the editor had that would put him in conflict. I don't see any attempt by you to discuss the edits at Talk:Mariéme Jamme. Please try to address editing matters as editing matters, and not as an excuse to go to multiple drama boards. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, the matter had been discussed on the article talk page in the past. Though, it does not look like any action is needed now that the removal of the information has been reverted. Nakonana (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

List of British Jewish writers

Does this list follow our MoS at all? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I would ask that 1. do all of these items meet the description? and 2. why are there these massive synopses for every list entry instead of a simple list like List of Jewish American authors? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)