Talk:J.John

John Ioannou

Is John Ioannou an actor, or is he actually J.John, this article?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC) John Ioannou and J.John are not the same person. SRinMiltonK (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Support for Pilavachi

@Tinihere: I am confused as to which part of WP:BLPREMOVE you feel applies to this sentence. If you don't like Premier Christian News as a source, J.John's comments and the backlash were also mentioned twice in The Telegraph, which is generally considered reliable per WP:RSN (1, 2). It's not original analysis or synthesis, it's not a self-published source, and it verifies fine. What is the policy case for removing this sentence? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tinihere - without a response, I'm planning to restore the sentence tomorrow. If you object, please do come here to discuss so we can figure out consensus. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 - References connecting people to controversial personalities should be primary. This claim is contentious and should stay removed unless we use J.John's original comment as a reference. See WP:BLP 2nd & 3rd paragraph. Tinihere (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that we require or encourage primary sources for controversial statements. In fact, WP:BLP explicitly warns us against using primary sources. Nothing in that sentence violates the second or third paragraphs of WP:BLP. It states that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" - we have that. This is not poorly sourced material, nor is it irrelevant. The sentence does not sensationalize or mislead. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tinihere, any response to this? —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point. But how do we, as editors, deal with the possibility that this publicity would harm his privacy? Tinihere (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

In what way? The story's been in The Telegraph already! The Telegraph story is based on a public comment J.John made on social media! Is the sentence in any way inaccurate? It doesn't demonize him, it accurately describes what happened. There are no privacy issues to be concerned about here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove Tag

WP:CON to remove this tag

. I believe that the sources are WP:RS and follows WP:WTRMT. Tinihere (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I will be removing the tag based on #8 on WP:WTRMT. Tinihere (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry to not have replied until now, but I believe the tag should be kept for now. www.sternfieldthoughts.blogspot.com/ is likely not reliable. The multiple YouTube sources are also problematic per WP:RSPS. There is also a lot of sourcing to non-independent sources owned or managed by J.John and his businesses/associates. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello again. I have cleaned up the page to remove unreliable sources (www.sternfieldthoughts.blogspot.com/ and YouTube videos). I also streamlined non-independent sources owned or managed by J.John and his businesses/associates. The page should now be clean and lean and ready to remove the tag. Do you agree? Tinihere (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe the issues raised in the tag has been addressed. So I will go ahead and delete the tag. Tinihere (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the article's not perfect, but it's in better shape, so I think that's fine. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)