Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Trial of Jeffrey Donaldson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is a minute by minute account of an ongoing criminal case involving a living person really appropriate? Obviously in the adversarial system we're hearing the prosecution's case first (with some cross-examination), which tends to make the coverage somewhat biased against the living person concerned. FDW777 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A 'minute by minute account' of a trial would be inappropriate regardless of the legal system involved, but clearly the imbalance you note is an additional problem. Having said that, actually enforcing WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS in relation to subjects like these is almost impossible. You could try removing and/or summarising some of the bloat, but getting it to stick is likely to be problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

jury have been sworn in and charged by the judge NOT to do any research online & ONLY rely on what they have heard in the court room, all facts are backed up by a several online news articles that have been cleared by the news outlets legal teams, therefore i cannot see how the article could affect the trial .... as per triming the article you would run the risk of making it biased by excluding certain points in my opinion & better off detailing the majority of what is a complex case WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

BTW there is also a daily podcast by the BBC about the trial ^[1] that reports even more details about the trial thats left out of the newspapers, which again has been cleared by legal teams & has zero effect on proceedings obviously... and according to the latest episode the defence get their turn next week WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

"i cannot see how the article could affect the trial". That's not the only argument for not having this material. In fact, it's not even the argument that either FDW777 or AndyTheGrump made. Morwen (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

i don't get the point u are trying to make ? WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, not affecting the trial doesn't equate to not presenting potentially biased content to general readers, and secondly you haven't really addressed the issue of excessive detailing of everything that is reported. Again, Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarise secondary sources, not replicate them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

the defence is starting next week so that will balance it out, i suggest the article is trimmed down after the Verdict is delivered, as we will have a better idea of what was relevant & what can be removed WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I remember that we had regular updates to HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan while the trial was ongoing, but we managed to achieve this without hitting major pitfalls. PatGallacher (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

was that as detailed? what I have seen of this is barely less detailed than if we had a court reporter there. Morwen (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Morwen verdict is expected shortly, we could then cull what is deemed irrelevant, although i would submit that as much detail to explain what went on should be retained & since vast majority of evidence in the weeks long trial was spoken testimony that was then cross examined its fair to say it was complex and deserves proper recording WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I hope this is the right place to report this. I wanted to avoid getting into an unproductive back-and-forth on the talk page, so I thought it would be better to bring this straight to the noticeboard.

An editor (temporary account @~2026-88206-5) recently posted a highly problematic thread on Talk:Brian Peck titled "Severe sourcing problems with this article". The post directly violates WP:BLPTALK by engaging in severe victim-blaming, denying the victim's status, and making defamatory claims against the victim Drake Bell. Specifically, the user attempts to downplay Brian Peck's 2004 convictions by claiming the victim's identity is unproven, calling him a liar ("Bell is patently lying"), and accusing the Quiet on Set docuseries of fabricating the entire connection. They also mischaracterize the victim's age, suggesting he was 17 during the abuse, when court records and reports show he was actually 14/15 but 17 at the time of the abuser's arrest. They basically claim Bell is not the victim and lying about it.

Additionally, the post contains serious legal mischaracterizations, repeatedly labeling Bell a "convicted child molester". To be absolutely clear, Bell has never been charged with or convicted of any sexual misconduct. His 2021 plea was for attempted endangering of children and disseminating matter harmful to juveniles (see Drake Bell#Child endangerment conviction), and the user on the talk page completely fabricated a sexual offense history to attack him. Furthermore, even if Bell had been convicted of such offenses, it would have absolutely no bearing on the historical facts of Brian Peck's 2004 convictions. Bringing this up serves no encyclopedic purpose and is purely an unnecessary, defamatory attack on a crime victim.

The fact that Bell was the victim in the Peck case is thoroughly documented by mainstream reliable sources, including The New York Times (see [1][2][3][4]).

To ensure absolute clarity and leave no room for doubt, I have proactively streamlined the biographical section and added precise reports of court references connecting the 2004 sentencing directly to the established facts in the article today. While providing this level of granular sourcing is usually not even necessary for universally accepted facts, I felt it was important to secure the article against this type of ongoing disruption.

Using a talk page to attack a living person and spread conspiracy theories about a crime victim is a clear violation of BLP guidelines.

Could an administrator please take a look, remove or strike the defamatory thread, and warn the user? If I have made any procedural errors in bringing this here, I apologize in advance and would appreciate any guidance on the correct noticeboard procedure.

Thank you so much for your help! Serienjunkie2014 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the post as a violation of WP:BLPTALK given the shit sourcing the user linked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Have a great day, Morbidthoughts! Serienjunkie2014 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of your complaints of this user's Talk behaviour, I actually came here because your edits on this page are a breach of WP:BLP. I am not the person you are referring to, but I am Wikipedia editor of 10 years. I have decided to remain anonymous because of the subject matter and because I'm about to argue for enforcing Wikipedia policy on someone convicted of sexual assault of a minor, which is distasteful, but none-the-less deserves to be done. Wikipedia has strict guidelines around living individuals, even convicted criminals. You have engaged in an edit war on Brian Peck, consistently adding criminal charges against Peck (a low profile individual) that were dropped. You are also exhibiting a lot of bias here. You downplay the charges levelled at Drake Bell (a high profile individual), making the clear distinction that he was not *convicted* of sexual assault ("only" sexually grooming a 12 year old girl, which is still a felony), but regularly add dropped charges to Brian Peck. Furthermore, it's clear from your contribution history that you are a fan of Drake Bell. If the charges against Peck had led to a conviction, then it would be correct to include them, but as they didn't, and he is someone who does not live in the public eye, they should not be included, per policy. As vile as both of these people's actions were, Wikipedia is not the place to mete out personal vendettas on behalf of people you're a fan of.

I point to the following edits as evidence of your bias towards Drake Bell, who was Peck's victim:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drake_Bell&diff=prev&oldid=1347534910

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drake_Bell&diff=prev&oldid=1349012478 (and WP:EW)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drake_Bell&diff=prev&oldid=1337426564

~2026-35181-91 (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm only replying to the last part, about the edits that you give as evidence: It seems fair to me to remove an article and a paragraph about a former girlfriend from a section called "Child endangerment conviction" if there is no connection to the child endangerment conviction. ~2026-35505-52 (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Article Michael Halvorson contains a large quantity of unverifiable information, including claims about impacts of the article's subject matter and specific details of Halvorson's employment. Unclear how this information was sourced. Additionally, potential issues of NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karvlig (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The article was created using AFC by an editor who also seems to have edited a bunch of articles related to Halvorson. AFAICT, they've never declared a COI. I've asked them about it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I have received an email communication from Cardiff Registry Office that Nesta Myfanwy Wyn Ellis sadly passed away on 25 November 2025 in Cardiff. The article therefore requires updating, but as I cannot link to a source for this information I don't feel able to do this myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Pianos (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

We would need a secondary source to verify this before we can update any article, as the registry office is a primary source and we can't rely on primary sources for possible deaths. Iffy★Chat -- 09:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe Vickers' office are repeatedly removing anything critical about Mr Vickers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-34118-19 (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Users @Bram880 and @Jontel both removed the same paragraph as the only source was Hansard which is a primary source (WP:PRIMARY). For something to be considered notable enough for inclusion we generally expect it be have been covered by a second or third party source. I've previously removed a lot of WP:CRUFT from this article that was similarly poorly sourced, but these edits and these editors look legitimate, there's no indication that either editor is not acting neutrally here or has a conflict of interest. Orange sticker (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to confirm that my edit was for the reason given by Orange sticker above, I was acting neutrally and have no conflict of interest. Hansard records a great deal of commentary daily; requiring a second source increases the likelihood that it is of interest, as discussed. Jontel (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Likewise. Bram880 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I am Julia Masli, the subject of the article.

I feel uncomfortable that my private information about my mental health is included in my wikipedia page and given so much attention to. It was taken from one interview I did in the New York Times. I'm an artist and a clown, and would prefer personal information to be private. In particular information about my mental health.

Please could you delete this section of the article to protect my privacy:

"As a teenager, Masli intended to become a dramatic actor and to perform tragedies on London stages. She auditioned for British drama schools, but failed to get in, which she has attributed to her strong accent.[1] She then trained at the École Philippe Gaulier from 2014 to 2016.[1][4] After returning to London, Masli has said she struggled to succeed as a clown. She has said that for a time, she stopped performing for 18 months and was so depressed that she could not get out of bed.[1]"

I feel that my depression or not getting into drama schools has no relevance to my wikipedia bio.

Out of that paragraph please just keep the relevant information that I trained at the École Philippe Gaulier from 2014 to 2016.

Please help me amend this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-34654-10 (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. By @PatGallacher. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Pretty obvious this article is a hit job on a living person simply because people disagree with her conservative politics. There is *no source* provided for describing her as "far-right" in the first sentence, something she and her party would fiercely dispute. She literally said today she opposes far-right white nationalism in Australia. ~2026-34930-17 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The first two sources in the article describe her as "far-right"... GiantSnowman 16:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Are those rather obscure sources sufficient for such a negative label? The third source describes her as "right-wing populist". I'm curious as to why articles on other Australian politicians don't use negative labels in the first sentence. For example, Mehreen Faruqi or Larissa Waters aren't described as "far-left". ~2026-34930-17 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Who says they are 'obscure'? How about this and this then? GiantSnowman 16:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Lol the first SBS source you give literally says "Hanson and One Nation are often described by academics and political analysts as right-wing populists". 🤦 ~2026-34930-17 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

In an article titled How Australia's far-right gained mainstream attention in 2025 (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 19:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The information is supported by the article, and many others, c'mon now. GiantSnowman 08:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The two articles cited for her being far-right don't call her far-right. If other articles do they should be cited for the contentious label. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

From Discursive Approaches to Populism Across Disciplines (page 339)^[1]:

Hanson never relinquished her mantle as the Australian far-right’s spiritual leader

From Debasing Political Rhetoric (page 107)^[2]:

"The purpose of this chapter is to critically explore the use of debasing and ridiculing discourse by Australia’s most prominent far-right populist politician, Pauline Hanson."

In those two books she is clearly and unambiguously called "far-right". TarnishedPath^talk 12:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The second article explicitly refers to Hanson as "a far-right senator". Additionally, there are already multiple sources on the Pauline Hanson page which call her far right. Brightpaw (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very odd stance for SFR to take here... GiantSnowman 12:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course Hanson is going to say she's not far-right. She's trying to position herself as speaking for the masses. Reliable sources call her far-right.^[1][2]. TarnishedPath^talk 23:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hanson is Australia's most prominent far right figure and has been for decades. The number of high quality scholarly sources describing her as such is numerous . Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Are we genuinely having a discussion as to whether the leader of Australia's far-right One Nation party is far-right themselves? You've got to love Wikipedia sometimes. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

It is definitely against policy to descibe her as far-right in the very first sentence in the lead section.

Per MOS:FIRSTBIO:

"The first sentence should usually state [...] noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms."

Meaning if there is no consensus among RSes regarding the descriptor, the political position must not be included in the first sentence. Further down, the lead itself proves that this is the case:

"Since 1996, Hanson has been widely characterised as radical right, far right and right-wing populist."

Based on this, right-wing may be policy-compliant in the first sentence (as it encompasses all three), but far-right is definitely not. ~2026-34832-60 (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Except that "radical right" is an Americanism for "far-right", and most "right-wing populist" parties are far-right as well. And being far-right is a "noteworthy position" of hers, so it meets policy as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if everything you state in this comment were to be true, the three are still three distinct entities. The "avoiding subjective or contentious terms" part applies to the "noteworthy position" as well. Far-right is definitely a contentious (some could even posit dangerous) term, and the sourcing is simply not unambiguous enough to satisfy MOS:FIRSTBIO for including it in the first sentence of the lead. ~2026-35012-53 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity. We have more than sufficient sources (including the academic ones per Google Scholar ) to accurately describe Hanson's politics. And cut out the 'dangerous' scare-mongering nonsense. Politicians all across the political spectrum have been subjected to violence, in none of them has the wording of a Wikipedia article been shown to be a factor, and we don't censor articles because some lunatic might read them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

This has twice as many results. Hanson's politics are already accurately described in a policy-compliant manner: further down the lead, attributed.

(The difference is that violence against members of the rest of the political spectrum is not swept under the rug, normalised, rationalised, DARVOed or even outright celebrated by academia, mainstream media and the establishment at large - i.e. the current positions of the Cathedral are: 1. punching nazis is great actually and 2. everyone to the right of me is a nazi. You can synthesise the rest. NOTFORUM over.) ~2026-35012-53 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Go peddle your facile conspiracy theories somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, observing objective reality is not conspiracy theory peddling. Knock off the bothsidesism and the personal attacks, please. ~2026-35016-51 (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

A lot of the sources on that Google Scholar search you've linked still call Hanson far-right, including the very first result (Sengul 2022 describes Hanson as "populist radical right").

I don't know why you keep bringing American political talking points into this since this is a discussion about an Australian politician. The majority of sources for the last 30 years make it clear that Hanson is considered far-right in Australia. Brightpaw (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It should also be noted that 'far right' is a subset of 'right wing'. A statement that someone is right wing is self-evidently not a statement that they aren't on the 'far' side of the right-wing spectrum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

^this 100%. The term "right-wing" is an umbrella term inclusive of everything from slightly right of centre through to the far-right. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Correct. But is not a statement in support of it either, which would be the only thing relevant here. ~2026-35016-51 (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I've seen quite a few people arguing that the broader term trumps the more specific term on Talk pages for far-right UK politicians and parties. It is always with descriptions like "right wing" (broad) and "far-right" (specific) so it is not a general pattern of linguistic misunderstanding, just these specific terms. It is deployed in pursuit of an excuse to exclude a fact that it is embarrassing or impolitic to acknowledge from the proponent's POV, i.e. that the far-right person or party is far-right. I'm not sure that it is always raised in intentional bad faith but when people persist with it after its invalidity has been explained to them then that's probably a fair indicator of bad faith or at least of a POV that is clouding their objectivity. The funny thing is that a lot of the time the subjects are not embarrassed by the description "far-right". If anything, they would be offended if we called them anything as wet as merely "right wing". --DanielRigal (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Concur entirely. This is happening a lot lately, across Wikipedia political articles including those of parties, publications and politicians. The analogous situation would be to demand we cannot call orcas dolphins because they are whales. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Or that we cannot call a table saw a power tool because it is a tool. Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:FIRSTBIO very much applies here, but not at all how you state it does. I have yet to see any signficant viewpoints presented from reliable secondary sourcing which states that she "is not far-right". Some sourcing stating that she is extreme-right, or right-populist or right-wing do not contradict an ascription of far-right. Indeed one of the sources I provided above called her far-right and populist at the same time. Hanson's far-right positioning is one of the most identifying things about her, therefore I'd think that MOS:FIRSTBIO very much would have us include the ascription in the first sentence. TarnishedPath^talk 01:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

If a source does not call her is far-right, that is a source in the "does not support" column. No source lists everything that the subject is not, that is an impossible standard of evidence.

I maintain my position. "Right-wing" is more accurate in this instance. ~2026-35016-51 (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect. There are many sources which will say nothing of her political position. That does not contradict those that do.

You quoted MOS:FIRSTBIO to support your position on the basis that you claim it is a "subjective or contentious terms". Following the link from FIRSTBIO which is on the word "contentious" we are taken to MOS:LABEL which states that we should avoid using value-laden labels "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". It is clearly the case that the term "far-right" is used widely by reliable sources. You not likeing it doesn't change it. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I have demonstrated that the number of scholarly sources calling her "right-wing" is double that of those calling her "far-right".

Even if we (generously) assume that every single one of the sources supporting "far-right" is also included in the "right-wing" batch, that is still one to one. The ambiguity and lack of consensus is handily demonstrated, so I feel no need to re-state this point any further.

MOS:LABEL is more general, and does not override the more specific MOS:FIRSTBIO. Please see this RFC for precedent for this interpretation.

Would you kindly explain why you chose to omit the "in which case use in-text attribution" part from the sentence you quoted from MOS:LABEL? ~2026-35203-15 (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Because I don't even accept your argument that it's a contentious opinion. You've not provided any quotes from any signficant viewpoints expressed in reliable secondary sourcing which states that she "is not far-right". RS widely state that she is "far-right" and this is not contested by anything I've seen in mainstream coverage of her. TarnishedPath^talk 07:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've commented in the discussion on her talkpage but I don't see how it's appropriate for the first sentence to be worded this way. This appears to be unusual for politicians from the hard-right globally and for Australian politicians generally. AusLondonder (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

What other articles do is not entirely pertinent (See WP:OTHERCONTENT). Per MOS:FIRSTBIO, each subject should be evaluated independently on the basis of their notability to determine what goes into the first sentence/para. TarnishedPath^talk 09:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately I would prefer far-right be removed as it is not neutral for the following reasons.

I agree with your sentiment, the term is not neutral. If other articles have removed "far-right" from the prose then the article for Hanson should too. @GiantSnowman argues that the first two sources use "far-right" in their title but not all of the sources used in this article are unanimous in that description, in fact I think it is the minority of sources that use this description so it's not giving equal weight to all sources as called for by WP:NPOV. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

not all of the sources used in this article are unanimous in that description

This has been addressed above. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M: I agree that for this subject to be treated differently to other political leaders is problematic and brings into question our adherence to the NPOV policy. Discussion of whether the subject is far-right may belong in the article but it certainly doesn't belong in the first sentence is such an obviously negative way. It unquestionably violates MOS:FIRSTBIO: "The first sentence should usually state [...] noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." It's also simply unnecessary. She's a politician, that is all we need to say in the first sentence - we don't need any ideological labels. AusLondonder (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It unquestionably violates MOS:FIRSTBIO

I've yet to see anyone provide quotes from signficant viewpoints expressed in reliable secondary sourcing which states that she "is not far-right". So as far as I see it's not been demonstrated that the term is either subjective or contentious. TarnishedPath^talk 00:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is a BLP issue, however as I said on the article talkpage I think an ad hoc decision to label Hanson as "far right" in the first sentence is highly unwise. The issue is not whether this label is sourced, the issue is that no other articles on major Australian politicians use ideological labels in the first sentence. Having Hanson labelled as "far-right" while reverting similar labels on left-wing figures is going to lead to persistent edit-warring and an assumption of bias from readers. As I suggested on the talkpage, this should be raised at WT:AUSPOL to come up with a universal standard, not dealt with on an individual basis. My view is that ideological labels are almost always contentious and better dealt with in prose further down in the article, where different assessments can be given due weight. I T B F 📢 11:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In addition to no other articles on major Australian politicians using these labels, these sorts of labels are not applied to international politicians' articles either, like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, even though what they have been doing is blatantly right-wing, Trump's political ideology is left to a dedicated article rather than stating them in the lead. The article for Rupert Lowe previously said that he is a far-right politician but that was removed following a WP:BRD reversion though there is not discussion so the essay was not fully followed. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

this should be raised at WT:AUSPOL to come up with a universal standard, not dealt with on an individual basis.

Any discussion at WT:AUSPOL could only result in WP:LOCALCON and would not be binding on pages about Australian politicans unless it was advertised at the various central discussion forums (WP:VPP, etc). That aside, I see absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be considered on a case by case basis. Not all subjects have precisely the same reason for being notable, which is what we are concenred with when it comes to what goes into the first sentence. TarnishedPath^talk 00:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I think this will need to be resolved with a RfC so we can have wider input and not simply a handful of editors imposing a local consensus themselves to treat Hanson differently than all other Australian politicians and other comparable politicians around the world and violate MOS:FIRSTBIO on the biography of a living person. AusLondonder (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If we are going to create an RfC we will need to formulate a clear idea of what exact wording we should present and what options should be presented to commenters, in terms of options I prefer two choices that see a retention of this wording or consensus formed against this wording. An RfC would be very good because there will be a site-wide opinion rather than a handful of editors discussing this proposal. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no issue with an RFC. I think if we do it needs to be done on the Hanson article's talk page itself and I prefer a binary yes/no question when it comes to RFCs, as I think they are the most likely to lead to an unambiguous consensus one way or the other. Something like:

Should Hanson be described as far-right in the first sentence of the lead?

If this needs workshopping though, I suggest the Hanson talk page is the best place to do so, because this isn't a BLP issue. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you that reliable sources call Hanson far-right and have consistently opposed "far right is a pejorative label that should not be used if some sources say right-wing" argument but it is, narrowly, a BLP issue as Hanson is a BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• MOS:LABEL doesn’t give carte blanche for us to use contentious labels whenever they may be widely used among reliable sources. For example, if a contentious label also happens to be vague: “Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies.” Terms like “far-left” and “far-right” are not just extremely vague, they are also favored terms for marginalizing or “otherizing” political opponents. Instead of saying “far-left” for example, say the person favors universal basic income and reparations to minority groups, whatever particular views seem far-left. Same goes for far-right. This goes double if the BLP subject does not self-identify as far-left or far-right. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Editor Andre stated on the article talk page that Candace Owens "is antisemitic, full stop" . This is a characterization of a living person's beliefs/character stated as Wikipedia fact, not attributed to sources. Per WP:BLP and WP:LABEL, value-laden labels about living persons require attribution rather than direct assertion. Requesting review of this BLP violation.Chicabonita661 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It was on your talk page, to be precise. But even so, this is a gross BLP vio. ~2026-35092-91 (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Chicabonita, there are many reliable sources that call Candace Owens antisemitic, and quite a few are present as references in the article. Here is a detailed source. It is not necessary for an editor to cite a source on your talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Cullen328, the existence of sources is not in dispute. The issue is that Andre stated in Wikipedia's voice that Owens "is antisemitic, full stop" rather than attributing the characterization to sources (e.g., "sources have described Owens as antisemitic"). WP:BLP and WP:LABEL require attribution for such labels, even on talk pages. The presence of sources does not justify stating a living person's character as unqualified fact. Chicabonita661 (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE is for article space, not talk pages. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• BLP does not actually require what you're saying. The part that describes how it applies to talk pages is WP:BLPTALK, and it is actually much more narrow than people usually think: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Editors have a huge amount of leeway to post potentially objectionable things on talk as long as it's related to content decisions, including things that we could never put in an article directly as they stand. The reason for this is obvious - if editors were not permitted to even discuss something shocking or exceptional, we wouldn't be able to determine whether it should go in the article in some form; you're permitted to say "I think the truth is XYZ" at the start of a discussion to give your general perception of the sources as they stand, and then hash it out from there to determine what sources actually exist, what they actually support, what degree of attribution is necessary and how much, etc. This does have several caveats - it has to be something that credibly relates to article content; if it's wildly off-base or outside the bounds of anything the sources could reasonably be expected to support (or if an editor keeps hammering it to the point where it's clear that their real concern isn't content choices; or if the content has been settled and one editor is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK while posting such material) then it stops being reasonable. But in this case it's clearly close enough to coverage to fall under the BLPTALK exception for article choices, and in general the wording of BLPTALK is clearly intended to avoid a situation where discussion controversial things like this becomes a minefield. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Ron Hanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article: Ron Hanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Hanks) I am filing this notice regarding multiple BLP violations in the Ron Hanks article, as well as a pattern of editors reverting good-faith corrections. Issue 1 — BLP violation in lede: The second sentence calls Hanks a participant in the Capitol attack. He was never charged with any crime. This framing implies criminality and appears before any mention of his 32-year military career in violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Issue 2 — Lynch claim: The article contains an allegation of threatening conduct sourced inadequately for a claim of this severity. Requesting removal or sourcing upgrade per WP:BLP. Issue 3 — Edit warring: Good-faith corrective edits are being repeatedly reverted to restore problematic content. Requesting administrator review. Ggarcia9408 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for his military career? The lede summarizes the article. It looks like his military service is not mentioned in the lede because there's nothing in the article to suggest that his military career was notable. Jahaza (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. Reliable sourcing for Ron Hanks' military career exists and meets WP:RS standards:

1. Ballotpedia biography documents U.S. Air Force service 1984–2017, including roles as linguist, counterdrug officer, and counterintelligence agent: https://ballotpedia.org/Ron_Hanks

2. Ron Hanks' Candidate Connection survey (linked on Ballotpedia) constitutes a primary source for biographical claims.

3. Colorado General Assembly official records confirm his service as State Representative, HD60, January 2021–January 2023.

I would also note for administrators reviewing this thread: Ron Hanks is an active candidate in a contested Republican primary election scheduled for June 30, 2026 — fifteen days from today. The timing of repeated reverts reinserting unsourced defamatory content into a living person's biography during an active election cycle warrants particular scrutiny under WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. Wikipedia should not become a tool for last-minute electoral interference, intentional or otherwise.

This content has been reverted multiple times despite sourced corrections. Requesting immediate administrator review and temporary page protection. Ggarcia9408 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Spurious report. FDW777 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The report is not spurious. The Colorado House Cumulative Journal confirms Representative Mike Lynch served on the Business Affairs and Labor Committee and Judiciary Committee during the same legislative session as Rep. Hanks. Source: https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2022-house-cumulative-journal-accessible.pdf Rep. Hanks was addressing his colleague Representative Mike Lynch by name during floor proceedings. The claim he "joked about lynching" is a factual misrepresentation of a living person sourced to a single partisan outlet that fails WP:RS standards for serious defamatory claims under WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. Dismissing a sourced BLP complaint as "spurious" without engaging the evidence does not meet Wikipedia's good faith editing standards. Administrator review has been requested. Ggarcia9408 (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Responding to concerns about sourcing for military service. Multiple independent reliable sources confirm Ron Hanks' 32-year U.S. Air Force career, independent of Ballotpedia: 1. Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (April 2026): "Hanks served in the U.S. Air Force, with career experience including linguist, counterdrug and counterintelligence work." https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/colorado/former-state-house-rep-ron-hanks-running-against-hurd-in-cd3-primary-again/article_e9c45396-2ef6-4afd-9f24-a2b3de6c5f48.html 2. Colorado Sun (June 2026): Describes Hanks as "Air Force veteran" and quotes him referencing "experience in the U.S. Air Force as a linguist in the Middle East." https://coloradosun.com/2026/06/04/jeff-hurd-ron-hanks-colorado-primary-election-cd3-issue-guide/ 3. Colorado Public Radio (2024): "Former state Rep. Republican Ron Hanks was elected in 2020 to represent Fremont, Teller and Custer counties in the House, after retiring from a long career in the U.S. Air Force." https://www.cpr.org/2024/06/03/vg-2024-colorado-primary-elections-congressional-district-3-candidate-ron-hanks/ These are independent mainstream news sources meeting WP:RS standards. The military service claim is thoroughly sourced. Regarding the unaddressed BLPCRIME issue: no editor has engaged the substance of the lynching claim rebuttal. Colorado House records confirm Representative Mike Lynch served alongside Rep. Hanks during the same legislative session. The defamatory claim misrepresents a floor exchange with a named colleague and must be removed per WP:BLPCRIME. Ggarcia9408 (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, joking about lynching isn't a criminal offence therefore WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply. Secondly, as already pointed out your claim that The defamatory claim misrepresents a floor exchange with a named colleague (with Mike Lynch being said named colleague) is simply not what occurred. FDW777 (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

My question about the military service wasn't about mere verification that he served, but about weight. For most people, military service, even long military service isn't very notable. Jahaza (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Jahaza's concern. This is why non-primary coverage would be helpful in demonstrating the encyclopedic biographical significance of the fact, and that's only for a mention that's as WP:DUE as sources indicate. If we end up with half a sentence in the body, it won't go in the WP:LEDE. JFHJr (㊟) 23:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of the sources I'm seeing frame him as an Air Force veteran.
Declaring himself a “pro-Trump warrior,” Hanks, a former career Air Force intelligence officer, unsuccessfully sought..., Hanks, a former Arabic linguist in the U.S. Air Force, former state representative for Colorado House District 60 and hard-line President Donald Trump supporter, believes Republicans..., After spending decades in the U.S. Air Force as an Arabic linguist, Ron Hanks handily won a seat in Colorado House..., Hanks served more than three decades with the U.S. Air Force and worked in intelligence and national security before becoming a state lawmaker..., Ron Hanks, 61, is a former state lawmaker who served one term in the Colorado House beginning in 2021. Before that, he served in the U.S. Air Force as a linguist and intelligence officer..., An Air Force veteran and former military intelligence officer, Hanks has quickly become a polarizing figure in Colorado.
There's not much detail, although there's some safe ABOUTSELF stuff in some interviews, but his military career looks noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Active candidate in Republican primary election June 30, 2026. Article contains unsourced defamatory claim regarding racial remarks that violates WP:BLPCRIME. Sourced corrections have been reverted multiple times in apparent edit warring (WP:EW). Ballotpedia and Colorado General Assembly records exist as reliable sources for biographical content currently being suppressed. Given the active election timeline and pattern of reverts, requesting immediate administrator review and temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggarcia9408 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

This is neither an admin-specific forum nor a forum for protection requests. On the merits of your initial post, Ballotpedia is generally insufficient to support claims of military service. Ballotpedia does not do independent or reliable research to confirm candidate backgrounds in this way. Also on the merits of your initial post, claims of bad-faith editing appear without merit. Please seek non-WP:PRIMARY sources to show this is meaningful content for an encyclopedia and not an election. I agree with @FDW777: this report appears spurious. JFHJr (㊟) 21:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

All mentions of WP:BLPCRIME above are either spurious or simply tendentious. JFHJr (㊟) 21:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Hanks' military service, even if properly documented, that isn't necessarily sufficient grounds to include it in the lede. We'd need more than that - i.e. significant discussion of it in independent sources - to justify such content. Ledes are supposed to summarise what the sources show is important, not to document everything an individual has done. A mention of this in the article body wouldn't require the same level of discussion, but anything included there clearly requires a proper source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I've edited the Jan 6th attack section to match the sources, removed some sources that didn't mention the subject, and removed some quotes. Calling him a participant in the attack was definitely blpvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I've done a bit more cleanup and reorganizing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Much improved. Thanks, ScottishFinnishRadish! JFHJr (㊟) 22:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-35099-44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their edits is only to add prosecution involving someone death to multiple articles. I'm not familiar on how to handle potential WP:BLPCRIME so I'm asking here. - Ivan530 (Talk) 18:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Dealt with. None of the BLPs were directly involved in the incident and no charges were brought, so I have removed the edits and blocked the TA. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It says he is transgender in the intro section. He is not. I think it is vandalism.

That particular vandalism has been reverted. Hokit's objectionable comment at the White House on Sunday has resulted in extensive media attention and repeated vandalism of the article. I have semi-protected the article for 72 hours, in the hope that the vandals will move on to other pursuits by then. Cullen328 (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

A few extra eyes would be helpful at Talk:Keiko Fujimori on how to handle the result of the Peruvian presidential election. A number of reliable sources (including the London Times, Wall Street Journal, and Americas Quarterly) have declared Fujimori the winner. Other reliable sources have simply reported that she is ahead in the count, but no reliable source contradicts that she is the winner. How should this be addressed in the article when she is the apparent winner but the election authority has not officially declared it? Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the article. No newspaper projection is a replacement for an official election results. It's absolutely due to include that publications have projected she will win but we should not call her the winner in wikivoice until she wins per WP:TOOSOON. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

"Presumptive" winner would be okay. "[T]he official count of the National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE) exceeded 99% of the votes counted and extended Keiko Fujimori's lead over Roberto Sánchez to more than 32,000 votes...." Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I still think we should not be acting like a news service. WP:TOOSOON applies as does WP:CRYSTAL. I understand some opposition groups have asserted irregularities in the election. While I concur it seems most likely Fujimori will be the next president of Peru I think it serves no encyclopedic purpose to jump the gun. If we wait we have a 100% chance of getting it right. If we don't we have a small chance of getting egg on our faces. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

On Tricia Helfer, DestructionCoach (talk · contribs) wants to include this content. A variety of marginally reliable and unreliable sources are cited; none of them use the term "pornography" or "pornographer" and some of the content is entirely unsourced. Jfire (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I can cite her own words from her own page if I must, I feel as though doing that would make the article look unprofessional, crass, and as though it is directly promoting her services.

The term "pornography" is search engine optimisation poison and so the articles describe it euphemistically. What they do describe clearly falls under the definition of pornography, and someone who produces pornography professionally can correctly be called a pornographer.

The article likewise could be edited to avoid the word "pornography", instead calling it "adult content" or what have you, but in my view that kind of euphemistic dancing around an issue would go against the idea of using a neutral voice. DestructionCoach (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally, we follow how reliable secondary sources describe people, not what they terms they use for themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The page was on my watchlist and I just removed most of that content, much of which either failed verification (the pornography claims) or was undue (most of the rest). I also removed some less reliable sources. NicheSports (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In one of the sources your removed, what she is making is explicitly called "adult content", which is another name for pornography.

This is the definition of pornography that I am using: "Sexually suggestive material, such as a picture, video, text, or audio, intended for sexual arousal." By this definition, what she is making is pornography. This is not original reaserch, as the fact that the content is of this description can be gleamed from the articles, including her own words in the people interview, even if they do not use the word "pornography" for search engine optimisation reasons.

I understand that I didn't provide a source for some of the claims, I will cite her own words from her onlyfans page to clarify. I feel as though a short description of the content should be there for clarity. I'm not married to the terminology I used, but I do feel that the article should in some way mention the fact that the content she produces is explicitly made for arousing her audience (aka, pornographic).

I strongly disagree with your classification of her onlyfans as "modeling", this isn't clear from the articles on the subject sadly, but on her page it does say that she offers among other things, private audio calls, as well as selling videos that she produces. Those would fall heavly outside of modeling, especially the audio. In my opinion these should be in their own section, you could concievably try to split these between modeling and acting, but that would just not be very readable.

I plan on reversing your edit as it deleted way too much in my view, though I welcome changes overall, I do not think this change in her career should be reduced to a small footnote in a separate category, especially in the category of modeling, seeing how we're describing her as a "former model". DestructionCoach (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In one of the sources your removed, what she is making is explicitly called "adult content", which is another name for pornography According to you, not the unreliable source, nor any other source you provided. If you restore inaccurate and contentious content back to a WP:BLP, against the concerns of multiple editors, this is going to a noticeboard NicheSports (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand that an instagram page for a pop culture podcast is not considered a reliable source, but it does in fact call it "adult content". Quote: "Do you agree that A-list women taking full control of their own adult content is the ultimate power move?" - in reference to what they just described, her onlyfans page. Other, more reliable, sources allude to this, though their wording is vague for search engine optimisation reasons.

I'm partial to having the article describe this euphemistically or using different language in general, but I think it should be clear that what she is making is content that isn't merely images that is designed to sexually arouse the audience first and foremost.

The article, as it stands right now, could honestly be read by someone as though she opened an account on the platfrom and that's it, it does not describe the content that she produces at all. DestructionCoach (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi DestructionCoach, you have already been reverted 5 times on that article, by three editors. Additional editors here have expressed concern about the content that you are adding to the article. I recognize you are newer here but you are repeatedly trying to restore contentious content, against something that looks like consensus, to a WP:BLP, where there is a low tolerance for such content/edits. Can you please try to get consensus for any similar changes to the article on its talk page? It is likely that any direct edits you make to the article that are even broadly similar to what you have added to date will be reverted and risk you being brought to WP:ANEW for edit warring NicheSports (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the first reversion was done purely due to the source I used, which was my bad, and the sources I added were deemed acceptable. I wouldn't count that as part of the discussion.

The other two revisions are, in my opinion, unjustified, as they completely or almost completely strip my contribution of substince just because the exact words I used were not in the sources (this is because for search optimisation reasons, few publications will use the word "pornography").

I welcome any and all suggestions and edits that change the wording to something that will be more up to everyone's liking, I don't claim to be a wordsmith. My contension is that completely avoiding the subject matter and the fact that she is making explicitly adult-oriented content by putting it under the "modeling" section and removing all mentions of pornography is not accurate and actively distorts the truth. I've refrained from reversing the edits for the time being, as you can see, but I don't think the conversation should just stop at that.

I maintain that everything I've said is 100% accurate and can be backed up with sources, though some of it would require linking to Helfer's own posts. DestructionCoach (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, WP:3RR applies even if the reverts are to completely different parts of the article. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In the interview she compares it to being photographed for Playboy and the article on that doesn't call it pornography in wikivoice so that very much doesn't seem due.

I also don't think that starting an OnlyFans this year, when one of the references used refers to her by the name of a character she played in the 2000s, is enough due weight to put anything in the first sentence. Sesquilinear (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This is understandable, though I doubt many articles will be written about this in the future, and checking if her onlyfans is still active or a dead project would constitute original research. The reason I put "pornographer" in the opening of her article was because, in my view, her pornography career should be displayed separately from modeling and acting, as it does not quite fit either (since she makes pornography across many media formats, like audio, video and photographs). How long do you suggest we should wait before editing the first sentence?

Again, I could link her own words on her onlyfans page as a source, would that be satisfactory? DestructionCoach (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I doubt many articles will be written about this in the future is honestly an argument that she's unlikely to be better known (in reliable sources) for her OnlyFans work than for Battlestar Galactica. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I have pblocked DestructionCoach from Tricia Helfer. Edit warring to restore WP:OR about controversial material very obviously breaches WP:BLP. Judges might know what pornography is when they see it, but we don't get to be so opinionated as Wikipedia editors. Fences&Windows 20:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Tim Luckhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has a rather long controversies section for an academic Tim_Luckhurst#Controversies. I'm not really sure much of it is due weight (at least as a "controversies" section), and quite a bit of it appears to be sourced to a student newspaper of the university where the subject works. The article over the years seems to have been subject to both promotional COI editing by various accounts, as well as editing by SPAs who have an axe to grind against Luckhurst, without much input from regular Wikipedia editors. An account, who apparently identifies as the subject, LithiumNerd7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly attempted to remove the section, and earlier this year made a request on their talkpage for the page to be deleted. The student newspaper in question has recently written a piece regarding the editing of the page . Some additional eyes and cleanup to comply with BLP would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems to have largely been dealt with. Many thanks to those who worked to clean up the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I have started an RfC around a local policy on Formula 1 articles. I would appreciate eyes familiar with wikipedia's BLP policies on this.

The RfC maybe found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#RfC on driver nationality. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Dee Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is ASX TV a reliable source for Dee Palmer's date of death? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• AXS is a big music and lifestyle TV channel in the US (it's better known for selling tickets to concerts over in the UK) but I don't see why it would not be reliable (and its source is Ian Anderson's social media, so that's OK). HAving said that, there are more mainstream sources here and here. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not questioning that Palmer is dead; I'm questioning the certainty over the date, which is not mentioned by Anderson, or either of your sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello fair and sharp Wikipedia community. I would like someone to do a check on Elen Levon (Elen Menaker legal and birth name) when you have time look over it. What I found; missing verifiable citations. There are no legit links to any reputable press or media. A lot of the links are dead or tied to old blogs on internet archive pages and old personal site of Elen herself, which are not really allowed to be cited as sources on a Wikipedia pages (correct?) It fails notability pass in the condition the page is at right now. Please help me evaluate this whole article and help add verifiable sources or suggest deletion of this page to other Wikipedia editors, who have more expertise, if such sources cannot be found. I ask an experienced Wikipedia editor for help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivebranch68 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I am Alex Villanueva, the former sheriff of Los Angeles County. Listing me as a gang member is defamatory and libelous. Listing my undersheriff Tim Murakami as a gang member is equally defamatory. There is zero evidence of misconduct on our lengthy work histories and does not merits this designation, and it appears Cerise Castle, a well-known anti-law enforcement activist, is the main source of information that is long on accusations and preciously short on facts.

In fact, the entire entry is poorly sourced using questionable references from compromised sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35584-63 (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Gangs in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Sesquilinear (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the list of alleged gang members as requested, but many of the sources in the article like NPR are pretty solid, and you are someone with a manifest conflict of interest, so I am inclined to take your opinion on the article with a large grain of salt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I trust this issue is in good hands with @Hemiauchenia but I've also watchlisted this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, the LA Sheriff gangs issue is really outside my wheelhouse, but we absolutely should not be labelling people as alleged gang members without multiple good high quality sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 WP:BLPCRIME and WP:LOWPROFILE are both very clear and, as I often point out when this issue is pointed at suspected murderers and alleged terrorists, those policies don't just apply to people we like. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the "We were all cavemen" claim because I can't find any other sources other than Knock LA, and the New Yorker, which states "According to the investigative Web site Knock LA". I just don't think it's enough to pass WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm also a bit concerned about citation 7 right now. It's being used to assert in Wikivoice that specific named officers committed crimes but I cannot access to confirm whether the citation confirms they were convicted of such. Seems to be a work VPN issue - I'm not in my normal office today. Anyone else able to see that one? Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Lee Baca and Paul Tanaka have both been convicted of crimes related to their tenure in the LA police department, so I don't think Wikipedia can really drag their reputation through the gutter any lower than it already is, but I wasn't able to find additional sources discussing the claims so I've removed that particular sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. TarnishedPath^talk 06:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I was browsing through wikipedia and noticed the title of the page Xiaoquig Ding is grammatically incorrect and don’t know how to fix this issue. Can someone help me? / 973sister (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like that was a duplicate article in a misspelled namespace. I've redirected to the fuller article without the typo in the title. Good catch! JFHJr (㊟) 15:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Have a nice day… / 973sister (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Kith Meng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would anyone be willing to review this article? Its history contains quite an amount of edit warring over corruption allegations (e.g. ). The allegations were ultimately removed without constructive discussion. The current version has some fairly promotional passages, such as the lead.

I found this article by going a down a rabbithole of suspicious (likely UPE) edits.

—Janhrach (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

In 2024, the food writer Naomi Duguid made a post saying her ex-husband Jeffrey Alford had died : "Jeffrey Alford, my ex-partner, with whom I lived and worked and created six books and two wonderful children, now fully grown and blooming, died today in a hospital in southern Thailand, aged sixty-nine." He has not been mentioned in the media since, except one recommendation for a book he wrote. A paid obituary for his son in 2025 describes him as (the late). WP:BLPSPS appears absolute that this cannot be mentioned, even as an attributed "On January 16, 2024, Duguid published a post on Instagram stating that Alford had died that day in southern Thailand". I have removed the statement, but under WP:COMMONSENSE this exclusion appears crazy. Confirming that there is no way for this to be mentioned under Wikipedia policy. Whonting (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I have been starting to think we need a solution to cases like this. it feels cruel that the best we can say to a grieving family is to advise them to get a newspaper or another reliable source to cover such an event. One possibility I have been thinking of is a special unit that operates a little bit like VRT that can verify these using a methodology that we would then be able to accept as a reliable source. Morwen (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It is astonishingly cruel for family members to have to go on Wikipedia and read that someone they love and know is dead is still alive, even after a statement has been released that very credibly establishes death as fact. I appreciate you making the VRT unit suggestion, although the last thing I want for grieving families is to have to deal with Wikipedia bureaucracy, and it seems to rest on the idea that we are either reaching out to people to confirm their loved ones are dead (bad) or reporting they are still alive until a family member or loved one is so hurt such that they are moved to action (bad).

Does anyone believe in this instance that adding an attributed claim such as the above would be harming Wikipedia? If not, I will invoke IAR and add it in. Whonting (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)