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.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.
Notes for volunteers
How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?
You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
Manually search BLPs for violations by using advanced search parameters. This link will search for X in the category of BLPs. Change X in the URL to the keyword you are looking for; alternatively, type X incategory: Living_people (the underscore is necessary) in the search bar.
A TA is very keen to associate these two apparently living people with the production of child pornography, on the basis of a source which describes how they were falsely accused of being former child pornographers. More eyes on the article would be appreciated. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
"Falsely" accused? I have provided sources on the talk page that I think strongly support the claim. Fences&Windows 14:23, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Both of those book sources are WP:PROFRINGE and would not be reliable. There has been extensive discussion on Cheit and I would not be using The Assault on Truth for this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm unable to find this Village pump discussion at the link you posted or by searching the archives. Is there a summary available? Sartre Bimpson (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
What kind of sources do we need to consider a 97 and 98 year old are no longer living. Got
Shirley M. Eberle 13 Jan 1929 - 21 May, 2021 Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library. (Ancestry) Joshua Mortuary link not found and don't see at archive
both DOB are confirmed in Contemporary Authors. No obituaries found through newspapers.com. fiveby(zero) 18:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Fiveby We can use official death records as sources provided the DoB and location matches and such. Just use {{cite document}}. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Mike Love
I've been editing the Mike Love article for a while. I don't know whether to put this in general biography disputes or BLP disputes, so I'll just put it here for now. Recently, another user took out two passages I had put in the Personal Life section, which I noted in Talk: Mike Love. I reverted the edits, but the user took them out again. They noted in the edit summary that the info was "of unencyclopedic value", though they were sourced. I tagged them on the talk page and brought up why I added the info. They haven't responded yet, though. I brought this up here because I wanted to try and get a consensus on whether the info should be there or not. Thank you.PuzzleMuch (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I will post the specific changes here if anyone wants to look at the specific info that was removed.
I spotted this one while reverting a TA adding in that the person has defended Adolf Hitler citing reddit.
Harry Cook (actor)#Political activism currently has a paragraph detailing him speaking against Israel and the Jews community, and cite some websites called "Radical Truth Telling" and Instagram. What to do here? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Instagram isn't appropriate for controversial statements. If independent sources discuss his allegedly controversial statements, that might merit inclusion to some degree. I don't know anything about the provenance of "Radical Truth Telling". 331dot (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
"Radical Truth Telling," also referred to as "Israelly Cool" appears to be some guy's blog. This whole section is a gross BLP violation, a fabric of bad sources, synth and WP:LABEL violations. I don't know if Mr. Cook has actually denied the holocaust or said the other terrible things the article accuses him of. But if that is to go into the article then appropriate sourcing is required. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
This article is written in a subjective tone about the author's works and life. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1)It describes his 'shyness' from the editor's perspective and makes a cause-and-effect relationship based on this subjective personality trait with life events. Quotation: "his shyness seems to have hardened into a conscious distaste for bourgeois careerism (Marxist thought was still influential in the West at that date)".
2) There is a section describing retirement titled "Uneasy Retirement' instead of merely "Retirement". This reflects editorial bias; describing Les Harrop's retirement as "uneasy" is controversial and can be interpreted differently by readers and critics. Another example is the claim that "Harrop has never married though he is the father of three interesting sons."
3) Lines like "but within two months he was burned from this fastness by the bushfires that took so many lives" read with a story-like perspective rather than quotations from an encyclopedia.
Violations include violations of WP:NPOV and violations of WP:TONE.
Was cleaning up certain articles (recently disrupted/vandalized by a new user) and came across MeToo allegations in the middle of a bio career: Vipul Shah#Career.
Can anyone check if these comply with out guidelines and policies and/or if they need modification/removal.
Cheers Gotitbro (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, assuming that it was reported in an RS(I’m not too familiar with the sources so idk if it is reliable sources), then it’s fine if it makes it clear it is an allegation and includes any relevant statements by the subject. I’d probably reccomend someone find any statements that he said in response(ie. saying it’s fake ect.) if there are any. 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 07:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The sources are news sources from India that are not named in WP:NEWSORGINDIA and are not the sort of reporting that would be likely to be undisclosed paid reporting. Vipul Shah is not WP:LOWPROFILE - he's a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so, yes, it should be clear that these are accusations of which he has not been convicted of crimes but he is a figure to whom accusations can be documented. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Maybe that's what's happening at this BLP. Adam Hamilton is running for U.S. Senate in Kansas. So a slight majority of editors (me included) would like the BLP to briefly mention that Hamilton has acknowledged he'd handle child sex abuse allegations (against a church volunteer) differently from how he handled them decades ago (by calling in the police). But the argument at the article talk page is pretty much deadlocked, and every time anything is inserted into the BLP about this, it gets deleted. Here are several sources for the acknowledgment by Hamilton:
(3) Jackson, Malik (10 Oct 2026). "Kansas Senate race heats up as Marshall, Hamilton clash in increasingly competitive contest". WDAF-TV. Retrieved 22 Oct 2026. Hamilton acknowledged he wishes the church had handled the situation differently. Asked whether he wished he and his church had reported the allegations to police before 2006, Hamilton answered: 'Absolutely, absolutely. Our policies then were to do internal investigation. We changed that next year. We absolutely would have taken it to the police first.'
Incidentally, Hamilton's church currently has attendance of 9,600 people across six loacations. But back in 2005-2006 (when these incidents happened) it was somewhat smaller, about 6,500 people. I feel quite uncomfortable with the complete 100% exclusion of the sex abuse controversy from the BLP, but a persistent minority of editors at the BLP has insisted upon it. Any advice or participation would be appreciated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I can’t handle all this feedback, it’s too much!😁Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
What you seem to be saying is that there is no consensus to include the information- 331dot (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Most editors have favored inclusion, and I don’t think exclusion is consistent with policy such as the part of WP:BLP that I quoted. There was clear consensus to include, but not a a strong consensus. I’m more interested here in (1) whether editors think it should be included, and not so much about (2) the headcount at the article talk page. I’ve given info above about the first question, not the second. Do you have any opinion about the first question, User:331dot?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
This article implies in Wikipedia's voice that the authors of a 2024 Nature Geoscience paper (by Andrew Sweetman) may have committed scientific misconduct. This includes data falsification and a "concerted effort to hide" results. These claims are sourced mainly from a PubPeer comment thread, and also from critiques led by employees of The Metals Company -- a deep-sea mining firm with a financial stake in the dispute. The article doesn't disclose that affiliation. Much of the rest reads as original synthesis -- for example applying Twyman's law to the paper, or comparing Sweetman's webinar remarks against photos from unrelated papers.
The scientific criticism of the paper is real and belongs in the article (or maybe the main Dark oxygen (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)), but the misconduct allegations don't appear to meet BLP standards, and the article likely needs broader neutral POV or original research attention.
I created this account just so I could post this, since I've never stumbled upon a Wikipedia article that seems so out of line with regular standards. I've never made an edit though. Could somebody with a better understanding of the Wiki ecosystem (pun intended) please take a look? Blakelearnsthings (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
You appear to be correct both in regard to original research/synthesis and to the entirely improper use of PubPeer comments as a source. Given the extent of the issues, in my opinion the appropriate remedy will be a complete rewrite. It might even be legitimate to speedy-delete it as an attack page, though that might be pushing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
That would be one solution, but it needs doing with care, preferably by someone with some subject-matter knowledge. Disentangling useful content from the rest is going to be tricky. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, I just did it. If anyone feels it was too bold, well, WP:BRD is the cycle after all, feel free to revert. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 02:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
taking a step back, should this even be an article? It's not entirely clear to me if its too technical, and even if it isn't i see much essay-like writing and WP:SYNTH that is entirely unallowed.@Blakelearnsthings, I'm not an expert on this, and wikipedia relies on experts to provide additional support. Feel free to edit, clean, and do WP:BOLD edits as necessary. I think I may try to get to this if I ever get more time. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 02:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The quick replies from multiple people here have been astounding! It's exciting to see a clear, real-time example of so many people pitching in to contribute to a common cause. Seeing the level of passion here may be my motivation to get more involved in Wikipedia in the future. Blakelearnsthings (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
It is not always like this, but hey, this is an exciting topic. Please provide suggestions, and glad to see a new editor around! User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 02:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
For anyone watching this thread, I've been digging into the main editor of the topic article RatSWIng and have noticed that this account only makes edits on this topic. Most of these changes swing in the same realm of neutrality (or lack thereof) as the topic article. I'm going to be looking into Deep sea mining, Manganese nodule, Abyssal zone, and 2024 in Scotland in the coming days. Blakelearnsthings (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
feel free to work on articles you have interest on, make articles you care about, and participate in the job of creating a repository of information for humanity, there are a bazillion problems on wikipedia, but there is plenty of time to fix them eventually. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 03:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
It isn't unreasonable to look at the editing history of someone who creates a questionable article. I did the same thing, and came to the same conclusion. Per WP:FOLLOWING Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. If it is an issue with neutrality rather than say spelling, one needs to be a bit more careful, but there seems to be agreement here that there is a real problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Andy that it's totally legitimate to question whether a WP:SPA like RatSWIng is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Grace Ofure Ibhakhomu biography
This individual is currently embroiled in several allegations related real estate fraud. The wikipedia page is fraught with inaccuracies and the purpose of this page is allegedly to confer an air of legitimacy in an attempt to defraud potential investors . Her legal issues are currently ongoing and extensively documented in this link https://www.youtube.com/live/dzLp00mktVQ?is=FUWwl1K_3-T0I5rS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-56955-75 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Perry Bhandal biography — unresolved factual inaccuracies and reverted corrections
I am Perry Bhandal, the subject of the Wikipedia article:
I am requesting further independent editorial review following repeated reversions of factual corrections and independently sourced career information.
I acknowledge my conflict of interest and have followed the advice previously given by Nat Gertler to submit smaller, individually referenced changes through the article's Talk page.
1. Incorrect classification of a completed feature film
The introduction continues to describe my 2026 film Okay, It's Time to Go as a "generatively produced series".
This is factually outdated. The project was completed and released as a 111-minute anthology feature film in 2026.
Indeed, the article's own Career section correctly identifies the completed feature film, directly contradicting its introduction.
The film's classification and runtime are documented here:
A formal Talk-page correction request was submitted on 19 October and remains unanswered.
2. Reversion of independently sourced career information
On 25 October, editor IrisChronomia reverted a targeted expansion concerning The Last Boy (2019), citing excessive detail and promotional wording.
The proposed addition included my writing, directing and producing credits and the film's worldwide sales agreement with Spotlight Pictures, documented in contemporary reporting by Screen International.
I accept that the level of detail is an editorial consideration. Accordingly, I have proposed a substantially shorter alternative on the Talk page, retaining only the principal credits and independently reported distribution information.
I am not seeking to restore the earlier comprehensive biography rewrite or to bypass Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest procedures.
I am asking uninvolved editors to consider whether:
The introduction can be corrected to identify Okay, It's Time to Go as a feature film, consistent with the article's own cited Career section and the published film listings.
The shortened, independently sourced Last Boy addition can be assessed on its factual and encyclopaedic merits.
These individual corrections can be resolved without further wholesale reversions of otherwise verifiable information.
I recognise the importance of neutrality and appropriate sourcing. My concern is that the biography should accurately describe my completed work and professional credits.
I would welcome independent editorial intervention to resolve these outstanding matters.
It's generally a terrible idea for editors with a COI to expand anything directly. While you've made some edit requests, as far as I can tell you never made a proper edit request for your Last Boy changes. By a proper edit request, I mean using the COI edit request template, and outlining exactly what changes you want to make and the reliable secondary sources supporting the change. This would have been the proper way to try and get this changes, not to make the edits directly. Unfortunately by trying to force the changes in even if you disclosed your COI you've reduced the chances editors are likely to be willing to help you. As for the "Okay, It's Time to Go", the solution seems to be to just remove this film completely. From Wikipedia's POV, it might as well not exist. It doesn't seem any reliable secondary sources have noted its existence, or even your plans for it. The fact it's listed on your website and places where it's been released is irrelevant. Unless reliable secondary sources have talked about it, it's not worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I had a look at all the sources. This one "Okay, It's Time to Go" but it's an opinion piece you wrote so even assuming Broadcast Now is a reliable secondary sources, it's fairly useless for establishing the significance and relevance of the film. This one is a little better but it only talks about the film and you fairly generally in a piece on films made with the help of AI. None of the others seems to mention it. The fact it's been out since I think April and no one seems to have noticed it exists is strongly indicative to me that for whatever reason no one cares about this film so unfortunately nor will Wikipedia. I see some mention of reviews on your site. These potentially could be enough but I'm not familiar enough with sourcing standard for reviews especially when it comes to community radio as both of those seem to be to comment further. (My guess is community radio is problematic because the standards are probably generally fairly low, but I don't know.) The fact that they're radio does make using them more complicated but they can still be provided the reviews are held to be reliable. I'm not going to remove it myself but if you're worried about the info being outdated the solution IMO is unfortunately potentially going to be to remove it since that single brief mention before it was released in a piece on AI films isn't enough to mention it when no one cared to say anything about it when it was released. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
BLP and NPOV violation on Biography of Lauren Chapin
NAC: This article is not within the scope of BLP, and even if it were, there is no problem for BLPN to address outside the normal copyediting and Template:Edit COI processes. JFHJr (㊟) 03:10, 29 October 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.
I am writing to request an editorial review of the biography for Lauren Chapin to address a specific, unverified factual error and a severe lack of article balance under the "Personal life" section.
Disclosure: I am the subject's child (editing under Darkhorse76). Following a discussion on my talk page with editor LkL-70547, I am bringing this request directly to the BLP Noticeboard for independent community review.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article currently violates Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) guidelines regarding accuracy and Neutral Point of View (NPOV) due weight in two specific ways:
1. Inaccurate and Disputed Claim (Reading Eagle Source)
The article currently states: "In the 1960s and 1970s, Chapin had problems with drugs and also sold them herself at one point."
The specific claim that she "sold them herself" is factually incorrect and is sourced entirely to an old local newspaper archive (Reading Eagle). While my mother openly acknowledged her personal addiction struggles in her autobiography, she never stated or admitted to selling drugs. Under BLP policy, highly sensitive or potentially defamatory criminal claims require exceptional sourcing. An old local news snippet does not meet this standard for an unverified criminal allegation. I request that the phrase "and also sold them herself at one point" be removed.
2. Severe Lack of Article Balance (Undue Weight)
The text currently focuses exclusively on her early personal struggles, completely omitting how she turned her life around and spent decades helping others. To restore proper NPOV balance, I have provided a high-quality secondary source from People magazine (https://people.com/lauren-chapin-dead-father-knows-best-child-star-was-80-11914143) documenting her resilience and extensive advocacy work.
Proposed Text Integration:
To correct the error and reflect her actual legacy, I ask that an independent editor replace the current "Personal life" section with the following balanced text, sourced to her autobiography and the new People magazine reference:
"In the 1960s and 1970s, Chapin faced personal struggles with substance abuse, which she later made the subject of her 1989 autobiography, 'Father Does Know Best: The Lauren Chapin Story'. After rehabilitating, her later years reflected remarkable resilience. She embraced her faith, shared her recovery testimony openly, and dedicated her life to helping others overcome addiction and adversity through public speaking, ministry work, and community outreach. She also advocated for child actors, serving extensively on the board of the non-profit organization A Minor Consideration."
Request for Consensus Protection:
Once an independent editor applies this rewrite, I request that this noticeboard establish a clear community consensus for this text. Securing a consensus here will help prevent future disruptive edits or regressions back to the unverified, unbalanced wording, ensuring the biography permanently adheres to Wikipedia's strict BLP and NPOV standards.
Thank you for your time and assistance. ~2026-56394-62 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
If you're talking about Lauren Chapin, then as she died over 6 months ago BLP is not relevant. As the allegation appears to be verifiably sourced to a contemporary newspaper, I see no reason for its removal. The fact that her autobiography does not include an unflattering detail doesn't mean it isn't true. I see no reason to include your proposed text. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be flattering memorials or hagiographies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
BLP also covers the recently deceased, and six months is fairly recent. –Muboshgu(talk) 18:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:BPD says "extensions [of BLP application after death] would apply 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 a particularly gruesome crime." Here, no surviving party is apparently identifiable as having an interest in a BLP way. These were not details challenged by the subject during life, and they weren't about anyone else. This request should be closed. JFHJr (㊟) 22:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I'd argue that the very fact that we are seeing this post suggests implications for their living relatives and friends, that's why I recommended the OP bringing it here as a recently-deceased case. Apologies if I read that wrong. LkL-70547 (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
But what are the implications for living relatives or friends? I see implications that are about the deceased subject. The personal struggle was documented, and if it has to do with a survivor, it's not textually apparent. JFHJr (㊟) 23:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Emotional discomfort? That surely is a part of why we tread so carefully around regular BLPs. LkL-70547 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Emotional discomfort is generally not enough for even a living subject to get well-sourced content removed. Sorry. JFHJr (㊟) 23:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I see. I'm not usually on BLPN and have been much educated. Thanks:) LkL-70547 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Remember to log in when posting. And please don't use an AI to talk to us in the future. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The complaint that the source is "An old local news snippet" doesn't hold up. This was an AP story. Newspapers.com finds it in over 100 US papers in its archives, as well as over a dozen in Canada. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
An AI hallucination. JFHJr (㊟) 00:44, 27 October 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.
Yesterday I removed inflammatory, biased and inaccurate language from this piece. There was also some irrelevant material, as I recall. A few minutes later someone reverted all my edits. This person must have a vested interest in attacking the subject, Reem Al Salem. This is inappropriate. Obviously this person is somehow tracking the edits on this entry, which I find strange and disturbing. The goal seems to be to incite hatred against this public figure by using inflammatory and inaccurate language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-44865-12 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
If a change you make to an article gets reverted, a good next step is to take to the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Reem Alsalem.
There is nothing inappropriate in an editor undoing your massive edit, particularly when you are removing sourced statements. In this case, it's even specifically called for, because (as you will see on that Talk page), this page is under a restriction that "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page, except for making constructive edit requests." As you were not logged in, your edits were not valid. Nor are you allowed to continue discussing it here: see Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict
(The editor who undid your edit is not a frequent editor of that article. Tracking edits to an article is a normal part of Wikipedia practice, and editors have tools to maintain a list of articles they are interested in and see which ones have been edited of late.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
(Adding note that I'm fine if another editor wants to delete this entire section due to the Contentious Topics problem.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
(Uninvolved passer-by comment) The vast majority of the article does not seem to be related to a-i, and that giant edit only slightly touched on it. Is there another CTOP with ECR on gender related issue that I am not aware of? LkL-70547 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
If the giant edit touched on it then reversion is completely legitimate. It's the TA's responsibility to stay well away from A-I broadly construed not for other editors to work out which of their edit violates and which doesn't. Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
As for this discussion yes it's technically a violation of ECR for the TA to take part since it concerns an A-I edit. I suggest the TA head to the talk page and ensure they only discuss which does not involved A-I broadly construed. Bear in mind that while there is no ECR for gender related issues, the CTOP means the TA needs to be on their best behaviour or is likely to end up blocked. A lot of this has been discussed before, so the TA will need to bring something new to the table or it's unlikely to be worth discussing. To be clear, there is no point discussing the reversion even on the talk page for several reasons but particularly since several of those changes were clearly inappropriate and the TA simply cannot discussion the reversion. Instead they should discuss what changes they want to make that do not come close to A-I broadly construed. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I will note that the edit did touch the A-I portions of the article... but only to place a full reference there as the reference was being deleted from the earlier, gender-related portion where it was called. If the consideration is that the article is not exclusively A-I related and thus the edit may be considered okay despite the talk page warning, I accept that view. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
An editor has three times added an unsourced date of birth to the infobox immediately after the comment "<!-- Valid citation required for date of birth for BLP. (WP:BLPPRIVACY) -->" After each of the first two times I posted a note on his or her talk page pointing out the need for a valid source. The edit summary with the latest addition says, "This is the correct birthday. You deliberately took away her birthday for no reason. Jill has said the same thing celehttps://www.imdb.com/name/nm0428382/ ". (I had pointed out the editor's talk page that IMDb is not reliable. See "January 4, 1975 is correct" on User talk:Stay blessed 33.)
I don't know what else to do. If I delete the date, the editor is likely to add it again. Posting on his or her talk page seems to have no effect.Eddie Blick (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The same editor who makes unsourced additions to Jill Marie Jones (as mentioned in the preceding post), changes the year of birth in Persia White. He or she changes the year from 1976 to 1972. The latest change was accompanied by the edit summary "This is the correct birthday. Persia has said many times this is her birthday. Please stop putting the wrong date." But no source is provided for 1972.
I pointed out in a post on the editor's talk page that the source cited in the article (Morgan White Productions) says, "Persia White, born October 25th 1976 ...". As with the Jones change, my posts on the editor's talk page seem to have no effect.
I will appreciate any help that someone with give with either or both of these situations. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Unanswered BLP talk-page request — Derrick C. Brown
Hello — I'm the subject of Derrick C. Brown, posting under COI guidelines rather than editing directly. On Oct 15, 2026, I posted "Proposed updates, corrections, and request for tag review" at Talk:Derrick C. Brown with sourced corrections and a request to review two long-standing tags: "needs additional citations" (May 2019) and the conflict-of-interest tag (May 2020). As of Oct 28, there has been no reply, the article has not been edited since Sep 3, 2026, and both tags remain. Could an uninvolved editor please review the talk-page thread? Thank you.
Well, you didn't include the edit request markup to put your lengthy requests into any queue. Usually, omnibus edit requests will take longer to evaluate. Template:Edit COI contains markup and formatting instructions for discrete changes. If you submit requests on individual bases, they may get faster consideration. JFHJr (㊟) 02:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Armin Wirth – unsourced contentious claims added by single-purpose account
The last paragraph of the biography section of Armin Wirth was added in this edit at 08:41, 9 September 2026 by Edmond Dantes26 (+492). The account was created that same day, made this one edit and nothing since. The edit filter tagged it at the time as a possible unreferenced addition to a BLP; no one has acted on it in the seven weeks since.
The paragraph is entirely unsourced. It alleges misconduct by a company and, by extension, by the article subject, and it asserts legal action that was said to be imminent in September 2026. The fourteen references in the article all date from 2014 and none support it. The assertion about future litigation is unverifiable by nature (WP:CRYSTAL) and the stated date has passed with no update or source added.
The paragraph also misstates verifiable facts: the acquisition took place in 2016, not 2014, and the company was not based in Stuttgart.
I am disclosing a conflict of interest: this concerns the subject of the article. I am therefore not editing the article myself and ask uninvolved editors to review it.
I request removal under WP:BLP and revision deletion of the affected revisions.
I have taken that out as unsourced (which, btw, you could have done yourself as the article isn't protected) and other unsourced parts of the article. Lectonar (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
IMO the situation here was complicated enough that it made sense for the OP to ask for help rather than edit it directly although it is true that unsourced info about BLPs is one area it's normally fine to edit directly with a COI. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Joe Mitchell (politician)
There are serious WP:BLP violations that keep being re-inserted at Joe Mitchell (politician). There is a related SPI. We have content like "a video was published online of Mitchell in an alcohol-fueled racial tirade in which he denigrated white women and expressed desires to have intercourse with Black women and raise nonwhite children" with sourcing including the DCCC. And content like "after a long night discussing policy and their love of Donald Trump in a hot tub at a Turning Point USA Student Action Summit" with no sourcing that shows anything remotely of the sort. Then we have "Joe Mitchell voted in May 2021 to expand Iowa's Workforce Housing Tax Credit, his real estate company received over $3 Million because of this vote" sourced to Courier Newsroom. The claims being made versus the sources being provided leave much to be desired from a BLP standpoint, but there is a persistent army of editors reinserting this content. Marquardtika (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
RFC: How should the Zak Smith article be updated to reflect recent reporting on the conclusion of Smith's litigations?
The discussion has already been collapsed as AI generated. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm already wishing the semiprotect on that talk page hadn't come with an expiration. MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah. Hopefully arbcom sets the page and talk back to ECR required. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Camilla Araujo's birthday
Currently, there's a dispute regarding the DOB of Camilla Araujo. Araujo has explicitly listed her birthday as May 1 in this TikTok just a few days before it in 2025. Furthermore, she has given her age out in the past, such as here, which relays a podcast episode in late 2025 where she explicitly states she's 23. She has also made birthday posts on May 1 every year since at least 2024, including this one in 2025 where she explicitly states she's 23, and this one in 2026 where she states that May 1 is her birthday, but not both in a single post, which individually wouldn't qualify for DOB, though perhaps they can if combined.
The first two posts are what I think are grounds for listing her birthdate. @Sangdeboeuf: has objected to this on the grounds that since Araujo hasn't formally declared her birthday as May 1, 2002 in a single source, it should be excluded per his reading of WP:DOB, since that means we can't "reasonably assume" (which is the language of WP:DOB), that she would be comfortable listing out her full DOB. I disagree since Araujo has clearly stated several times information that easily can deduce her real birthdate multiple times, including having declared pretty openly her birthday and age, and is clearly comfortable posting about her birthday annually to a degree that it can be reasonably inferred she lacks any issue with her date of birth being featured. To the extent that she hasn't at this point seems less like a possible attempt to cover it up and more of a lack of need to state what can be inferred and easily found under WP:ROUTINE.
Note of this post on WP:ORN, also stemming from a dispute that Sangdeboeuf was in and which he linked in our discussion, in which it seems like rough consensus was that it wasn't OR to combine birth info to formulate a birth date per ROUTINE and wasn't a BLP issue at the very least if its an WP:ABOUTSELF case, which the examples listed above are. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 20:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion from early 2026 at Wikipedia talk:No original research seemed to reach a rough (not formal) consensus that combining multiple sources to extrapolate a person's date of birth, while not technically original research, was still not sufficiently sourced per WP:DOB, even when one of the sources was WP:ABOUTSELF. Araujo doesn't explicitly state her age or even say it's her birthday in the first Instagram post mentioned, contrary to Knightoftheswords's claim. Statements like "Chapter 24 loading" are too vague (deliberately so?) to use for any definitive claims relating to a person's age. As I stated at Talk:Camilla Araujo, the subject's public image seems carefully managed; if they wanted their full date of birth publicized, they would just state it outright. Consensus per WP:DOB is that a verified social media post by the subject saying something like today is my 50th birthday – a single statement that unambiguously gives the year and day of birth – may be usable. So far we don't even have that, so we should stick to the presumption in favor of privacy and just list their (approximate) year of birth. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Well firstly you stated on that talk page that the ORN discussion found that it wasn't original research. And again, that isn't my read of the discussion; the closest was that many there stated that it may not be enough per DOB, and even then a lot of them explicitly stated that this probably wouldn't apply to ABOUTSELF situations for similar reasons listed at WP:DOB. Both of the sources (the TikTok and podcast statement) are ABOUTSELF. Even though Araujo does manage her image a lot, the view that she (again, with all the info above provided) isn't content with her birthday being listed in unfounded. Her not explicitly not stating her birthday can be just as (and likely less) to do with privacy as it being not a pressing matter when information that she disclosed that can lead to it had already been widespread, including btw her full DOB on other parts of the web that although understandably aren't reliable enough for Wiki-BLP standards, are generally used by wider public.
To illustrate my point, and I just realized this while writing this, the current lead and infobox are both wrong, in that we know from gathered info from Araujo that she was not born in 2003, but due to the dispute above, that year has been inserted in, despite information from the subject stating otherwise. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 05:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
