Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

---

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

BC Fourteen

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.

---

This page is autobiographical by user 'Faktmagik' and is written with a biased tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icon of Destruction (talk • contribs) 14:31, April 26, 2025 (UTC)

See: BC Fourteen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icon of Destruction (talk • contribs) 14:32, April 26, 2025 (UTC)

I've edited and COI tagged the article and warned the author. I'll also tag for notability. JFHJr (㊟) 03:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Aside from the COI/AUTO issues, there's the WP:NOR/unreffed notion that he is the same person as the other two names mentioned. No WP:RS or even WP:BLPSPS currently discusses the pen name belonging to the subject, or that the name change occurred from the other. It takes a bit of gestalt to get there. JFHJr (㊟) 04:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Faktmagik, could you please explain what you're doing with this article? You've again inserted unsourced biographical material. It does look like an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. You did not respond to my messages and warnings on your talkpage. Maybe you'll explain here? Many thanks. JFHJr (㊟) 04:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Also at COIN. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  I closed that report because the user was blocked from article space. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Also also at ANI. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Well, that worked. For now. This is someone who's had multiple previous accounts, and will almost certainly sock after block. JFHJr (㊟) 23:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Also also also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BC Fourteen. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:40, 29 May 2025 (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.

Edit request for BLPs on US federal judge birth dates

Hello English Wikipedia editors,

This is Brian Choo, writing from the Foundation’s legal department. We wanted to pass along a request to modify content on Wikipedia we received from the United States judiciary for your consideration.

On 15 May 2025, the Wikimedia Foundation received an email (“the letter”) from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO). The letter requests that, under the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022 (wikilink), for all articles on current U.S. federal judges, their full dates of birth be removed, leaving only the year of birth. The letter cites the BLP policy to justify this request, in particular the section "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources".

The letter itself, which was also sent to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT), "requests that guidance is sent to site administrators, editors and/or contributors to coordinate the removal” of the full dates of birth.

We think the request in this letter is reasonable to bring to volunteers’ attention as an edit request, and we hope it can be considered as per Wikipedia’s content policies and guidelines.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation legal department, BChoo (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. The criteria for inclusion of dates of birth (WP:DOB) and other general criteria regarding primary sourcing for biographical material (WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPSPS, and WP:PRIMARY) collectively make it clear that non-controversial, adequately-sourced dates of birth get included. And the act does not apply here because Wikipedia neither brokers nor buys nor sells the information; nor is it a part of the US federal government. The act doesn't even exist as law because it's only been introduced, apparently. A categorical exemption for a special class of subjects is not provided for in our criteria. On a case-by-case basis, the information may be included or excluded. I'm open to reviewing discrete articles on a case-by-case basis, but I doubt anyone here would seriously entertain a categorical change. Please feel free to forward them my talkpage for requests. JFHJr (㊟) 23:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I would just like to expand on this, as I have previously looked into this issue. The statute in question states:

Sec. 1(b). Nothing in this Act shall be construed—

(A) to prohibit, restrain, or limit—

...

Sec. 4(2)(B)(ii) the reporting on an at-risk individual or their immediate family regarding matters of public concern;

...

(B) Exclusion

The following activities conducted by a business or commercial entity, and the collection and sale or licensing of personally identifiable information incidental to conducting these activities do not qualify the entity as a data broker:

(i) Engaging in reporting, news­ga­ther­ing, speaking, or other activities intended to inform the public on matters of public interest or public concern.

...

Sec. 5(c)(1)(B) Other businesses

No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the internet personally identifiable information of an at-risk individual or immediate family if the at-risk individual has made a written request of that person, business, or association to not disclose the personally identifiable information of the at-risk individual or immediate family.

...

(C) Exceptions

The restriction in subparagraph (B) shall not apply to—

(i) the display on the internet of the personally identifiable information of an at-risk individual or immediate family if the information is relevant to and displayed as part of a news story, commentary, editorial, or other speech on a matter of public concern;

Wikipedia is very clearly informing the public of matters of public concern. Birth dates of judges are relevant to the public because certain regulations regarding eligibility for judicial retirement hinge on the age of the judge, and become applicable to them on their birth date. Furthermore, the act appears to require that each individual judge must make their own request. Having worked for three federal judges, and having known dozens of others, I doubt that most of the judiciary cares at all whether their birth dates is on Wikipedia. BD2412 T 00:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412 perfectly stated. And this act's provisions are not even signed into law. It's not a statute yet is it? It's just a bill. JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I seem to recall that it was signed into law, and I presume that if it was, the letter received by WMF would recite the statutory authority. @BChoo (WMF):, please send me the letter. I would strongly recommend that the WMF file a declaratory judgment action to obviate the applicability of this statute to Wikimedia projects. Frankly, I think it's facially unconstitutional as written. I'd be glad to argue the case myself. BD2412 T 00:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412, I'll co if you like. I'm barred 4th Circuit. JFHJr (㊟) 00:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Very good. I'm in D.C. and the EDVa. I suppose the WMF is in California for these purposes. BD2412 T 00:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

If WMF goes first, WMF chooses where. They can afford anywhere. Conservative circuits like ours are actually probably a better bet. JFHJr (㊟) 00:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@JFHJr it's a law. My guess is it got rolled into some omnibus which is why the Congressional site still just shows as introduced. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Barkeep49. I'm trying to do this and dishes at the same time. Thanks for saving me the search. But I still agree with and stand by @BD2412's estimation of its meaning, above. JFHJr (㊟) 00:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I concur with Barkeep that this does appear to be actual signed law. Would the judges articles be seriously impacted if their full birthdates were removed? Imo no. The privacy concerns seem legitimate; people use birthdays as security questions and sutch. Is this the legal hill we really want to die on? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's the final text, from 2022 (starts on the bottom of p. 3458). WP clearly isn't a data broker, and unless it falls under "association" (which isn't defined in the Act), then it also isn't a "person, business, or association," and so the Act simply doesn't apply here.

Re: "the act appears to require that each individual judge must make their own request," there's a section that says that the Administrative Office of the United States Courts can make a request on an individual's (or many individuals') behalf. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The statues don't apply. And if they were construed to, the exemptions cover Wikipedia, WMF, et al. JFHJr (㊟) 01:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Setting aside the law discussion above (I am not a lawyer and I don't even play one on Wikipedia), I would like to examine the request through the lens of Wikipedia policies. And WP:DOB says that we should honor this request in most circumstances as I doubt that the sourcing for most judges has been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. I would support the efforts of someone who does cleanup of this set of articles (hell all BLP but this is the set we have a request for). Alternatively I would support the foundation asking the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for ones where they think it doesn't meet our standard rather than this blanket request so that the volunteer time could be more focused. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

A list of case-by-case decisions to make individually right? JFHJr (㊟) 00:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

PS. I am not a lawyer and I don't even play one on Wikipedia... At least two of us are in fact federally barred attorneys, and we know what we are taking about. Even if we don't normally play lawyer on Wikipedia. This is serious enough to offer a professional opinion, and if necessary, service. JFHJr (㊟) 00:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes a list of objections so a case-by-case decision could be made. Bad law should be challenged so I appreciate the legal thinking you're doing above. However, my focus here is on upholding Wikipedia policies and in that sense I am receptive of the ask regardless of whether the law is constitutional or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm also receptive to the request, per WP:DOB. But if there's consensus for that, WMF should make it clear to the government that (a) we cannot prevent an editor from adding the information back in (though we could put a hidden note about it), and (b) in any event, the changes will not satisfy the text of the law, which says

After receiving a written request under paragraph (1)(B), the person, business, or association shall— (i) remove within 72 hours the covered information identified in the written request from the internet and ensure that the information is not made available on any website or subsidiary website controlled by that person, business, or association and identify any other instances of the identified information that should also be removed.

This info will remain available in each article's edit history. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

It will. Even WP:OVERSIGHT leaves deleted versions available for viewing by permissioned OSers or by admin or layfolk upon a reasonable request. We don't have toilets to flush records down on Wikipedia. JFHJr (㊟) 01:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: My first reply to OP was that I'd be open to working with case-by-case evaluations. I'm happy to see you may be available to help shoulder the review. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I would add that we didn't make up the dates reported in these articles out of the ether. They were publicly available somewhere at the time that each article was written. I made quite a few of these articles myself, and remember seeing these specific details included in White House announcements, Congressional testimony, and newspaper profiles of nominees. In some cases, the subjects were previously notable as political officeholders or state court judges, with their dates of birth reported in connection with their previous offices. BD2412 T 00:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

And. Unringing government bells is not BLPN business. That would be censorship. JFHJr (㊟) 01:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

If the specific details were in White House Announcements or Congressional testimony that presumably meets our WP:DOB burden for may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. But then the unique twist in this case is the consideration for what happens when the subject changes a mind and does object, which puts us in a trickier position. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Then we'll still cite to the live or archive source with the full date. And AOC can try this with Wayback and the rest. Trying to erase the internet is a fool's errand. JFHJr (㊟) 02:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

IMO, we should honor the request per WP:BLPPRIVACY. We exclude information from BLPs all the time, and I doubt the judges' DOBs are "widely published by reliable sources". Some1 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

That's why a case-by-case review is best. You can't tell till you look. And we don't have a list from the federal AOC. JFHJr (㊟) 01:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

And let's note: the request came not from any subjects, but from the Administrative Office of the Courts: a court clerk somewhere. JFHJr (㊟) 01:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

We should also keep in mind that numerous judges are getting doxed [2] so any information that we are providing that is not in the free-and-clear public knowledge (eg such as coming from a published biographical article) could be aiding in these. It also goes to the larger point that we should avoid doing the same across *all* BLP, for birth dates that otherwise not clearly public. Masem (t) 01:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

...And even if we cite a year without a month/day per clerk's non-specific blanket request, we will continue to cite to the live or archived reliable sources that still provide the full date, for WP:V purposes. JFHJr (㊟) 01:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been working on this issue because I noticed that Privmaman (who I've notified of this discussion) was blanking these. That was concerning, but I asked them to only remove month and day and not year and they agreed to that, however, they continue to post that this is required by law (it's not) and/or by Wikimedia Foundation policy (which the fact that they made this post shows that it's not). They've been removing DOBs today, even when cited. And they remove the years from the sidebar even when leaving them in the article, which is irritating, and remove citations which should be left to justify the year.

These DOBs are usually publicly available on google books. They used to be published by the Judiciary itself, I believe, but they're still usually available in the public records of the Judiciary Committee minutes for the confirmation hearings. Maybe in the future they will redact those, but for now, the bell has been rung for anyone already on the bench.

Given that judge's birthdates are linked to their eligibility to take senior status, it's a matter of public concern and their years of birth must be available. I'd be willing to not include the actual day of their birth, but argue that the month should be available to provide reasonable precision about when they turn 65. --Jahaza (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, re 65. JFHJr (㊟) 01:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting re User:Privmaman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). If there's a disruptive editing problem, there's a better forum for that. JFHJr (㊟) 05:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@BChoo, please request that the AOC clerk send a list, or else ask them to register and edit here or even my talkpage. I'd like to help. JFHJr (㊟) 03:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

In our reply to the AO on Friday, 16 May, the Foundation did ask if they had any specific BLPs in mind. We have not received a response. BChoo (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, BChoo. JFHJr (㊟) 21:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

There are a couple of things that should be noted here. First, as far as we can tell from the summary above, no one has demanded that Wikipedia must do something or face some penalty. The request posted here appears to be that we voluntarily remove the dates (month and day) of birth, relying not just on the policy reflected in the new statute but on our own BLP-based policies and guidelines. We should not be treating this as some sort of legal threat, attack on Wikipedia, or search for a confrontation. In particular, this letter appears to be a very different type of communication from, for example, the one received last month from an Interim US Attorney.

The incidence of threats and harassment against judges throughout the United States has risen to an alarming extent. The cited statute, which is named after the son of a federal judge who was killed in an attack on the judge's home (see Esther Salas), is part of a coordinated, necessary, and entirely reasonable nationwide effort to improve judges' safety and security. In addition to other types of security measures, there is a desire to remove the visibility of judges' personally identifiable information from unnecessary publicity. Outside the scope of this particular request, it is commonly recommended that people's exact dates (month and year) of birth not be publicized unnecessarily, even though one could debate how much incremental effect on privacy this might have given the other sources of information that are available. For what it is worth, the federal courts' own ECF/PACER website, on which court papers are publicly filed, instructs lawyers to redact the exact birth date of anyone mentioned in court papers, listing only the year, and this guidance is found on many other websites as well.

The suggestion that we refrain from publicizing living judges' exact dates of birth strikes me as a reasonable one, and certainly not one that should be opposed merely because the request has been made. A judge's exact birth month and day has limited encyclopedic importance in an article reporting on the judge's life and career, especially given that the birth year would remain included. Removing the exact birth dates (from existing articles) or refraining from including them (in future articles) would not deprive readers of significant information about the judge's life and career. For example, if I (a practicing litigator) am going to appear in front of a particular judge, I might be interested to know if the judge is 45 or 55 or 65 or 75; but I would have no reason to care whether he or she was born in January or in May or in August, much less whether it was August 3 or 13 or 23.

With respect to the issue of dates on which an active judge may become eligible to take senior status, the Federal Judicial Center maintains a listing here of upcoming judicial vacancies, including those created when a judge notifies the Administrative Office of his or her intent to take senior status as of a specified future date—which the judges typically do reasonably far in advance, to initiate the process of filling the active-judge vacancy. That listing is updated regularly, and is publicly disclosed by the court system itself, so there would be no barrier to including that information in the affected judges' articles, and there is no need to rely on the exact birthdates for this purpose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we need to weigh how much danger arises from sharing a birthdate as compared to the danger that would arise from sharing home addresses or daily schedules (which, of course, we don't). BD2412 T 15:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

When I call in for a medical appointment or info, they typically just ask for name and birthdate. That would be enough to start a whole chain of other private info by asking the right questions. Masem (t) 15:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

If Congress wants to regulate privacy in this way, maybe they should add something to HIPAA (or elsewhere) to prohibit such minimal data to be used to access that chain of information. BD2412 T 16:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

A full birth date can be used to access information from a wide variety of sources. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that the month and day of birth should be removed from all BLPs for that reason? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course not. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

So what is your point in saying "A full birth date can be used to access information from a wide variety of sources"? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

In order to illustrate that the impact of this information on a subject's safety and privacy is nebulous and goes beyond any specific scenarios that would be appropriate to address or define here. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, but that's true for all BLPs, not just judges. I do recognize that judges are among the BLPs who are facing increased threats, and as I noted earlier, I'm receptive to the request, per WP:DOB. Still, I think we should be mindful that these issues apply to many non-judicial BLPs, and also aware that anyone who truly wants to find out a judge's full birthdate can probably do so without difficulty. It's a standard question on the questionnaire they have to fill out as part of their Senate confirmation hearings, many of which are available online. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I was looking at some of these yesterday and it appears that the month and day is no longer part of the standard questionnaire, just the year. See for example[3] Jahaza (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have been looking at an older version. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the full birth date is of limited encyclopedic value with respect to these articles. We should always strive to minimize the impact of articles on the safety and privacy of their subjects, and recent events have shown that there is a clear need to do so here. I would support removing the birth dates en masse and then only restoring them in cases where the birth date has been published widely in easily accessible secondary sources (not print sources or the minutes of proceedings). ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

So why is this not applied universally to BLPs? We have thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of marginally (and thats being generous) notable single game appearance athletes, for example, where we take their birthdates from questionable sources and have countless discussions on whether this is legitimate or encyclopedic, resulting in the same outcome every time. We are not security for anyone, and I recognize the danger of publishing information so freely on these judges, but what is the actual line? We cannot have different standards for BLPs, it really is an all or nothing kind of deal because we as editors are not in a position to be judging danger based on perceived importance of the person being written about. We should abide by our existing BLP policy though and err on the side of caution for all BLPs as it pertains to personal information, particularly when it's not relevant to their notability.. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

It absolutely should be, I would argue. Unless it's a clearly relible, non govt source (eg a bio in a major newspaper or magazine or book, or self reported via social media) the most we should have is the year, particularly for low profile individuals. I know a fair chunk of editors will fight this but we should recognize that even something trivial like a birthdate can be a starting point for someone to be doxxed or the like. Masem (t) 22:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but would go a step further. We do not, and need not, report every available fact about our BLP subjects. We decide every day in the course of editing that various pieces of information should not be mentioned in articles, even where the information is undisputed and has a valid source—verifiability is the beginning, not the end, of the discussion. If, as we should, we decide that we should not routinely include specific birth dates of judges, or for that matter of lots of other people, that should not be transformed into a contest to track down as many exact birth dates as we can in other media so we have a pretext to restore them. Nor would it be desirable to have an individual discussion with respect to every one of the thousand-plus federal judges as to whether that particular judge's month and day of birth is worth reporting. While I suppose it is possible that unusual circumstances make a particular judge's exact birth date relevant, this would be at most a very rare exception that should be no means swallow the rule.

The circumstances leading up to the initiative seeking to take judges' personal information offline involve changes going well beyond Wikipedia, which it is legitimate for us to be sensitive to. As an example of how things have changed: I wrote a law review article a few years ago mentioning a pro se litigant (not even a lawyer) who in 1930 traveled from Chicago to Washington hoping to obtain an emergency stay in his case from the Supreme Court. The case file contains a letter from the Clerk's Office advising the litigant that "the Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit is Mr. Justice Van Devanter. He will receive you at 7:00 this evening at his residence at 2101 H Street, N.W." The judges' addresses were all in the phone book, as were those of cabinet members and congressmen and everyone else. Sadly, we can't do things that way any more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

This line of discussion exceeds OP's question presented and would require at least an RfC at Wikipedia talk:BLP to implement. JFHJr (㊟) 23:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I thought I'd reply as the OP. I don't think this line of discussion is out of scope. BChoo (WMF) (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking it may be a good idea to call a proper RfC on the topic at village pump or a policy page suggesting that full birth dates should generally be omitted unless the subject is extremely high profile or has shown clear consent to their full birthdate being publicly displayed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

By all means. Please leave a link here if you do. JFHJr (㊟) 23:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is, reliably sourced DOBs should only be removed if requested by either the BLP subject themselves or an official entity acting on behalf of the BLP subject(s) (which seems to be the case here with the AO and the US federal judges). And if we do honor their request(s) (which we should, per BLPPRIVACY, only the month/day should be omitted, not the year). I would be opposed to eliminating the full birth dates (or the month/day of the DOBs) of BLPs by default. Some celebrities, musical artists or influencers may actually prefer having their DOB public because it increases social media engagement and activity on their b-day. It would also be weird if this were an opt-in process. Most public figures don't care enough to provide copyright-free images for their infoboxes, so I doubt any of them would bother to manually opt-in to having their DOBs displayed. And determining who qualifies as "extremely high profile" is subject to debate. I'm curious about what the wider community thinks about the idea though, so an RfC might be a good idea. Some1 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Also want to note that if we truly cared about the privacy of BLP subjects, we should require that the creation of Wikipedia articles about living people be an opt-in process, requiring their request/approval instead of allowing editors to create BLP articles about them without their consent! Some1 (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

That would seriously skew the encyclopedia's coverage of living people, e.g. pop stars would opt in, war criminals would not. We can care about privacy without going so far as to let subjects decide if they're covered or not. Levivich (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

My experience on BLPN is fairly different from User:Praxidicae. We can and regularly do exclude dates of birth when the only sources are poor ones, e.g. database ones etc. We generally expect there to be quality secondary sources OR primary sources clearly linked to the subject (social media profiles or websites) before dates of birth may be included. It's true we have a heck of a lot of articles where this practice isn't followed, unfortunately a lot of people don't understand WP:BLPDOB. But when it does come up, poorly sourced dates of birth are excluded. Nil Einne (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Re: "full birth date is of limited encyclopedic value"; full birth date is bog standard biographical content. I would be grudgingly agreeable to month-and-year, because that gets the reader much closer to understanding the exact age of the subject (someone born in January 2000 is already 25, somebody born in December 2000 won't be until nearly 2026), but if we're going further than that, we might as well be excluding alma maters for fear of a malefactor trying to get information through their alumni association. There is also a greater principal involved. We are not, as noted above at several points, a data broker, we are a provider of information of public concern. We are entitled to the exception of the statute, whereas the AOC letter suggests that we should be concerned about the statute. Whatever we do, we should establish that we are doing it as a matter of our internal policies, not because we believe that this law mandates it upon us. BD2412 T 00:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that 1) the law does not apply and 2) even if it did, we fall within the exceptions and exemptions in the statute. And the rest is up to routine policy without special considerations. JFHJr (㊟) 00:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m with Newyorkbrad on this one. We should only post birth years for American judges. There is an ongoing threat to the judiciary there - especially those who buck the current government that’s in power. Our readers lose very little when we do this. Nobody comes to one of these articles to find out when to send a birthday card to a judge. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

So you support the redaction just for this category of BLPs? Or do you support a wider policy change outside the scope of this discussion but along the lines of Hemiauchenia's proposal at another forum in an RfC? I'd just like to hear you clearly. JFHJr (㊟) 04:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a straightforward edit request per WP:DOB ("If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it.") and we should implement it. Separately, year-only should be the default for BLPs, and we should run an RfC to update WP:BLP accordingly. Levivich (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you (nor strongly agreeing, just not making a statement) on the inclusion of birth-month-and-date. We should recognize, however, that doing that means taking away precise age, which we maintain with template calculations, and using the template that puts the vague "45 or 46", which is a bit unsatisfying when the precise age doesn't really reveal more than the birth year, but putting the date in the template does. (I also suspect it will lead to a bunch of well-intentioned edits putting actual age in age fields.) Of course, we could just leave age out and trust people to math as necessary. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I return to the fact that there is a legally significant change in the status of a judge's potential service occurring on the date they turn 65, and it may be of interest to readers to know with greater precision when this will be. I would at least include months. BD2412 T 16:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Might that be handled as a statement of that eligibility month in the infobox, rather than specifically including the month in the listing of the birthdate? That would make its relationship to the birth date a bit more obscure. (I'd be more in favor of this if we can a Template:Infobox judge, but that's just a reroute to the officeholder infobox template.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the year that they become eligible for retirement is sufficient -- the exact month or date is trivial. Wikipedia is not here to enforce mandatory retirement age for US federal judges; Wikipedia is here to summarize RS about the federal judges. If RS treat retirement age (whether upcoming, or past, or whatever) as a significant aspect, then Wikipedia articles can, too. Absent that, I see no reason to include month/day just because there happens to be a mandatory retirement age per WP:NOTTRIVIA, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, etc.

To Nat's "45 or 46" point, I agree that's clumsy and thus not ideal. My solution would be to stop putting calculated age in the infobox, and just list year of birth--let the reader do the math if they want to. Alternatively, if we do stick with calculated age, then "45 or 46" will have to do (for BLPs where we don't include month/day). Maybe "calculated age" should be included in the RFC about year-only birthdates for BLPs; maybe someone else will come up with a better solution. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me like it would be pretty simple to come up with a template or a module that displayed someone's age properly, without the date being publicly displayed (in the rendered article or the source). Legal note: This comment is not intended to advocate for or against any action regarding the request mentioned earlier in this section. jp×g🗯️ 01:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That is to say, a situation is possible where the source of an article contains {{Age from birth year|Peyton Manning}}, which displays as 49 -- his actual birth date being retrieved from some obscure page in a difficult-to-read format like a base64 encoded line in Module:Age from birth year/index/p/m.json, which surely could be recovered if someone is looking hard enough but at that point it is hardly public. jp×g🗯️ 01:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This was my thought when I saw this too, but I didn't know how to word it. Imo it should be fine to use something like {{birth date obscured|(unix time or similar)}}. I think the main problem is, like there seems to be agreement on, the full date of birth is mostly a piece of trivia that, while not necessarily wrong to include, isn't strictly necessary to provide information. That said, any solution like this (even if hidden/obscured on another page somewhere) would still make it trivial to figure out the full date of birth by simply watching (or going through the internet archive or something) for when the page changes the age... -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I figure that, since we cite people's birth dates to external sources anyway, there is always the possibility that someone will go look at those -- so the challenge we have is more like the joke about the two campers outrunning the bear. jp×g🗯️ 04:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

+1 to that. If anyone here fleshes out a full proposal for something like this (I wouldn't be much help, my extent with modules was making Module:ATC code to template name which took me four hours according to the edit history), please feel free to ping me and I'll probably support or offer my 2c. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding remove within 72 hours the covered information identified in the written request from the internet and ensure that the information is not made available on any website or subsidiary website controlled by that person, business, or association and identify any other instances of the identified information that should also be removed, does this imply that oversighting alone will be sufficient, or does it require the WMF to edit the information out from each individual revision on the database, since the information would still be accessible to those with access otherwise? Svampesky (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

If we were to hypothetically assume that Wikipedia is subject to the statute, I don't know that we would be required to edit the revision history at all. It is accessible, but not readily public-facing. Absent something like an edit summary saying "Date of birth: July 4, 1944", there is no way for a casual reader to know just by looking at the edit history page that dates of birth are contained therein. BD2412 T 20:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that removing the precise DOBs is just flatly supported by policy at WP:DOB. No opinion on oversighting etc. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as the availability of this information: the US Senate Judiciary Committee's Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees, in 1998, included "date and place of birth" [4]; for a 2021 nominee it includes "year and place of birth" [5]. As noted above, the societal trend is for more privacy of personal information; other than possibly for Supreme Court justices (who are substantially higher profile individuals) I don't see a compelling reason not to remove the exact birth date. 65.144.53.2 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think that this can basically be treated as a request being made on behalf of BLP subjects: that is to say, if the people had merely written a letter to request their birthdates be removed, it would be very difficult to imagine a cogent objection to doing so. I do not think we ought to base our editorial policies on who the current president is — sometimes it is a Republican and sometimes it is a Democrat — whatever factors we consider, which make an action smart or stupid now, also make it smart or stupid four years hence (or eight, twelve, sixteen &c). jp×g🗯️ 01:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• So long as the material appears widely available, I don't think we should remove the birthdays. I don't believe the statute requires us to do it and if the birthdays are available elsewhere, it appears pointless.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think that should be more of a factor than a determiner. We should not treat these with a one-size-fits-all policy. If we did that, it would require removing the birth dates from our articles on the sitting justices of the United States Supreme Court, as they are federal judges just like the rest. We should be looking at each judge individually and weighing how available the information already, in fact, is. We should be considering how notable the judge is within their field. Frankly, we should require a separate request from each judge who actually wants this information removed. BD2412 T 15:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  I could live with that. If a federal judge wants it so, let him or her request it of us. Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  There are over 800 US federal judges. Are you volunteering to field 800+ individual requests and determine for each one how "widely available" their DOB is? I'm not. It would be a huge waste of editor time to require 800+ individual requests. Especially when our existing policy already says to honor these requests. One request from the entire group (as has been made here) is sufficient for me to carry out WP:DOB. No need to make this difficult for BLP subjects and editors alike. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'll do it. For me, that's a typical Tuesday. Okay, maybe not a Tuesday, but I could see doing 25/day for a month. I can also guarantee you that there are far less than 800 federal judges who would actually make such a request. BD2412 T 18:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we should treat this as a blanket request under WP:DOB and remove the birthdates in question. I don't think we should require every individual to request this individually, as long as we can be reasonably sure that the organization making the request really does represent them. Loki (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts does not represent judges, it's a federal agency and judges hold independent appointments. Jahaza (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jahaza. Very true statement. This could be one clerk with the right email address and too much time. This could all be unsanctioned at AOC, in light of a week passing since followup with no apparent response. (Right, @BChoo (WMF)?) And the AOC does not normally represent judges or speak publicly on their behalf. JFHJr (㊟) 04:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar. [...] we can be reasonably sure that the organization making the request really does represent them. I see no reason to think so. I work in federal courts. I know AOC does not represent judges. They work for them. One clerk sending an email to WMF does not necessarily or convincingly represent even any one of the many federal judges currently seated across the United States. JFHJr (㊟) 04:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The AO provides support and staff counsel to the Judicial Conference of the United States and its committees, and implements and executes Judicial Conference policies, as well as applicable federal statutes and regulations. The AO facilitates communications within the Judiciary and with Congress, the Executive Branch, and the public on behalf of the Judiciary. [6] This looks like one of those "communications ... with ... the public on behalf of the Judiciary." Levivich (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe. I see it as a dim chance, for the apparent lack of followup by AOC with WMF Legal. No response at all as far as we know, for a week. That's not an indicative sign that it was a serious or sanctioned communication. @BChoo (WMF), has there been nothing further from the clerk? Are we sure this is someone in an office to make these kinds of requests at all? Or was it just from the right domain? JFHJr (㊟) 04:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The office replied last Thursday, 22 May, end of day UTC. They also sent us a reply today, 27 May. Perhaps I should have included the following detail in my initial post, but the email is from the AO's "Judiciary Security Division – Threat Management Branch". We consider this a serious communication. BChoo (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@BChoo (WMF): Thanks for clarifying and updating. This assuages some of my earlier concerns. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich. I think that is reasonable evidence that the organization that requested this really does represent federal judges. Loki (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I highly doubt all 800+ federal judges got together and unanimously decided that this was what they wanted. BD2412 T 04:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure they didn't. Why is that the standard? Loki (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Good day All. In support of full disclosure I am an employee of the Federal Judiciary's Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. My role is to implement the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022, ("The Act") that allows judges and eligible family members to remove personal information/"covered information" per The Act from public facing websites as identified in the legislation. With that, I have been authorized and tasked by individual judges with making edits to their Wikipedia websites to remove their full date of birth, leaving only a year of birth. The Act allows for exceptions to this removal effort specifically no removals for personal information "relevant to and displayed as part of a news story, commentary, editorial or other speech on a matter of public concern".

I thank you for the lively discussion on this noticeboard regarding this novel authority. Privmaman (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Two recent news articles that strike me as relevant: "Marshals’ Data Shows Spike in Threats Against Federal Judges" (NYT) and "US federal judges consider creating own armed security force as threats mount" (The Guardian, original paywalled WSJ article). FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Subsection break for recap

Recap of issues: I think the above discussion evinces a rough consensus that some change is warranted, but the parameters of that change remain hazy to me. I think the issues are as follows:

1. Do we want to make a change specific to reporting birthdates of United States federal judges, limited specifically to that group?
2. Would this change encompass full birth dates, month and day, or just day?
3. Would this change apply to all judges (presumably excluding Justices of the United States Supreme Court, but including federal appellate judges), or just those for whom date of birth can not easily be found in sources? Or just those who specifically and directly request this?

While I am not planning to "call a vote", I think the position of the community on some of these issues (and any other issues that discussion participants feel are warranted) should be clarified through some process. BD2412 T 22:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Someone is already doing that, so our best answer might be "not my job" (despite belated/undisclosed COI and UPE until very recently... this isn't WP:ANI). If someone does it, so what; evaluate it.
2. I think minimal DOB removal is preferential about people whose eligibility to serve is predicated on their dates of birth.
3. There should be no special DOB criteria for a subset of BLPs. At least not without an RfC at VP or the BLP guideline page. And we still aren't covered by the statute. But the answer is yes, where there's a credibly alleged request, try to honor it if you can.

Fair's fair right? JFHJr (㊟) 06:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The idea of "special DOB criteria for a subset of BLP:s" is IMO the problematic part. I get the "lots of threats" reason, but surely that can convincingly be argued to apply to other subsets of BLP:s, including non-Americans?

If there is a "Should we change WP:BLP to only include YOB (if available) in our articles from now on?" RFC somewhere, that could be interesting, and I might very well support such a change. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. JFHJr (㊟) 06:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

"special DOB criteria for a subset of BLPs" is already policy, documented at WP:DOB. The "subset of BLPs" are those who complain about inclusion of the full DOB or are borderline notable, and the "special DOB criteria" is erring on the side of caution and including only the year. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there are "issues," plural, just one issue (how to respond to the WP:DOB request), and I'd recap the above discussion of this issue differently:

1. We have an existing policy, WP:DOB, that says If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it.
2. Article subjects (US federal judges, via the AO) have complained about our inclusion of their date of birth
3. In the above discussion, 9 editors (me, FactOrOpinion, Some1, NYB, Jake Wartenberg, Another Believer, Zanahary, JPxG, and Loki) are in favor of applying WP:DOB in response to this request by erring on the side of caution and simply listing the year, while 4 editors (BD, JFHJr, Jahaza, and Wehwalt) are opposed

I think that's enough feedback to conclude this BLPN discussion with consensus to apply WP:DOB in response to the request we received. Levivich (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I can understand this reasoning. But I don't think AO saying "remove this, it's the law" (my paraphrase of OP) is quite the same as "a subject complains about our inclusion". But perhaps it's close enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

That's not how I'd paraphrase the OP, which describes the letter as a "request" and says The letter cites the BLP policy to justify this request. So instead of "remove this, it's the law," I'd paraphrase it as "please remove this per BLP policy." Levivich (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I was going by the "The letter requests that, under the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022 (wikilink), for all articles on current U.S. federal judges, their full dates of birth be removed, leaving only the year of birth." bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

So "it's the law and wiki policy." I think we're all happy ignoring the "it's the law" part (since WP is likely exempt under that law anyway) and just focusing on policy? (BTW, the Act is what authorizes the AO to make these requests on behalf of judges, so I understood the language in OP "under [the Act]" to mean "the Act is what authorizes the AO to make this request" not "the Act requires Wikipedia to honor this request", but without seeing the original letter, I can't be sure how the AO meant it.) Levivich (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

And here's where I'm not sure a blanket solution is good. I looked at several US fj-articles, and YOB only seems fairly common and the majority. In the case of for example Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, I say go ahead and remove, since one ref doesn't mention DOB and the other is primary. But at a glance, the DOB-sourcing for these 8 federal judges seems quite decent, and removing those would seem a bit like censorship. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Well that's cuz those 8 federal judges are Supreme Court justices. Levivich (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

And they fall under "The letter requests that, under the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022 (wikilink), for all articles on current U.S. federal judges, their full dates of birth be removed, leaving only the year of birth.", correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah but so what? Let's not pretend that Supreme Court BLPs are the same as other judges' BLPs. There are over 800+, so pointing to a set of 9 SCOTUS judges--the most famous judges in the world-- doesn't really demonstrate anything about the other 800+. Like, what is your point here, because I'm not understanding it. Levivich (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

AO seems to be saying they are the same, and my understanding is that you are arguing for "do what AO says." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand where you're drawing that conclusion from, but even if AO thinks they are the same, I assume you'd agree that the 9 SCOTUS judges are not a representative sample of the 800+ federal judges. I am arguing for "do what WP:DOB says." Levivich (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

From "all articles on current U.S. federal judges". They are not representative, but they are part of the request as written. I just made this edit[7], I consider that doing what WP:DOB says. However, I also made this edit:[8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

So you're good with this as long as we don't include Supreme Court justices? Levivich (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

There may be other US FJ:s in this request where I'd consider the DOB-sourcing sufficient, I'm not that familiar with this group of people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The AO is saying that they're the same. WP does not have to agree that they're the same. Even the Supreme Court website includes justices' birth dates, despite the fact that The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act applies to government websites. Presumably the justices have agreed to have this information available to the public despite the act. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This might be the body language of the unafraid. But it's more probable that even the activist clerk editor knows the information is innocuous and of public and encyclopedic import when it comes to SCOTUS. The infras are all debatable. Literally. JFHJr (㊟) 00:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that if Samuel Alito (or any of the other justices) personally requested his birthdate be removed under WP:DOB, it would be wiki policy to remove it. WP:DOB says we remove birthdates if a request comes through or they're borderline notable, not and. As far as I can tell, a BLP requesting to remove their birthdate means we remove it, period.

Now, I also agree there's a pretty reasonable WP:IAR case here for cases like the Supreme Court where the person is not only very notable but they have published their own birthdate in an official and widely-viewed place. I don't think the justices actually do have any privacy interest in their birthdate, even the relatively marginal one that other notable figures might have. Loki (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Question: What about federal judges who previously served in Congress or in high-level executive branch positions, of which there are a handful? Also, would we be applying this to those who have fully retired from the judiciary? BD2412 T 20:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As I think about this more, I'm somewhat inclined to ask the WMF to write the AO and say the following:

• We've concluded that the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act doesn't apply to WP.
• Per WP:DOB, we are willing to remove the month and day of judges' birth dates if they contact us individually and say that this is what they wish (perhaps with an exception: we will not remove the info if it's been widely reported and there's evidence that the person has OKed some other publication of the info, as is the case with the Supreme Court's biographies page).
• They should understand that WP archives all edits that have been made to an article, so someone who chose to go hunting through the article's edit history would still be able to find the information.

I'm assuming that the AO has an email list that would enable them to forward this info to the judges, and then we could leave it to them to decide. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I would also want to gauge their opinion on removing the birth date but leaving the birth month. I continue to believe that this is a reasonable compromise in terms of presenting the most accurate information with minimal opportunity for negative real world repercussions. BD2412 T 21:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Even a birth month would be violating the WP:BLP policy regarding not personal information sourced to primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

As Loki pointed out slightly above, the way WP:DOB is written, we are supposed to use YOB only for any individual who complains. Alito, Trump, Oprah Winfrey, doesn't matter. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I recognize that. I think that suggests an oversight in our policy. If any of those people were to request that their full DOB be removed, I bet editors would reject the request and say that it's an IAR situation. We can certainly start a discussion at WT:BLP re: whether WP:DOB should have a footnote saying that we will not remove the full DOB info if it's been very widely reported and there's evidence that the person has OKed some other publication of the info. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Personally, if those people or anyone else tweeted/whatevered (from a confirmed account or equivalent) "I want WP to remove my full DOB", I'd be "Meh, why not." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, OP-request spoke of "all articles on current U.S. federal judges", my emphasis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Btw, is someone able to produce a list of all the current United States federal judges? Preferably with wikilinks. Afaict, on the aspect under dispute, articles like John M. Gallagher is pretty much the standard (and that article has been that way since 2019), and I think many others might be "fixable" per standard WP:DOB application, it's not uncommon on WP to have a full BLP-DOB even though the sources given aren't really good enough per current policy. There is this view around that having a full DOB in a WP-article is right.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

There's List of current United States district judges and List of current United States circuit judges as a start. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

[9] That's one, no law needed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

When this 87-year-old senior judge dies, do we add the birth date back in? If so, do we put a reminder somewhere so the editor doing that doesn't need to search the web for it? BD2412 T 01:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

This is clearly a major WP:BLP issue considering that these dates are violating the privacy these judges, who are simply public servants, should be allowed and that there is a lack of coverage in secondary sources regarding exact birth dates. As such, all birth dates for active federal judges (for all levels, including any magistrate judges) should be removed as soon as possible. Let'srun (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

We're not talking about park rangers and tax examiners here. If they want to object personally in accordance with our content policies then they can object personally, but our policies allow use of reliable sources like questionnaires submitted under oath to the Senate. Jahaza (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Have we reached a point where we should ask an admin to close the discussion, and then ping BChoo to email the AO with that information? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Even though these judges meet WP:JUDGE by the spirit of the guideline, many of them frankly are not notable otherwise and do not meet the WP:GNG (which is why so many federal judicial nominees articles were deleted recently). As such, many (but not all) of them do not deserve the privacy violations these dates incur. The SCOTUS articles can keep the dates since they are better sourced, but the rest should go swiftly. Let'srun (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No, the nominees were deleted because they were nominees and not judges. If you think particular federal district or magistrate judges are not notable (and I'd probably agree that many magistrate judges aren't), then take it to AfD, don't censor their articles. Jahaza (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

It would probably be best to just let Privmaman handle the removal of these federal judges' birth months and days, since they're an employee at the AO and presumably have the email addresses of (and can contact) the federal judges. Their userpage says I have been authorized and tasked by individual judges with making edits to their Wikipedia websites to remove their full date of birth, leaving only a year of birth (emphasis mine), so I assume their edits are (and will be) based on each individual judge's request. Some1 (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

2025 killing of Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. workers

Attempted to create a talk page to remedy the issue of Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents in the United States being added to this page, but this is seemingly being ignored. My understanding of BLP is that it would be inappropriate to label this incident as antisemetic at this time given that it makes contentious presumptions of the living suspect's potential motives (WP:BLPCRIME) and could be libellous (WP:BLP). I am not making further revisions to the article myself as I believe "active arbitration remedies" prevent me from doing so, and I doubt this will be an issue that goes away quickly either. Macxcxz (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is about excluding the name of non-notables textually, but there is an exemption for references per Village Pump RfC. The motivation appears well-supported by reliable sources that report findings without opinions. If you'd like to remove the name of the accused in wikivoice under BLPCRIME until this non-notable suspect's conviction, you should probably consider an WP:RfC on the article talkpage. Otherwise, you might need a different approach to challenge the presence of the antisemitism descriptor. Is it not a word actually used in the sources or something? Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

BLPCRIME is not just about names and including antisemitism as a motive when the sources used to justify that are only opinions would be a BLP issue, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

So is the wikivoice here sourced just to opinion regarding antisemitism? It didn't jump out at me as so. JFHJr (㊟) 02:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It was the categories that were the issue, see the talk page discussion. Article itself is mostly fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

There's no wikivoice that I saw when I perused the article earlier. There are sourced and attributed statements such as Trump's statement that it was. The discussion ongoing on the talkpage is related to things like categories, hatnotes in sections, the see also at the bottom of the page, etc. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks y'all, got it now. JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This made all the difference. I swear I read OP. Thank you, de-fanging IP anon, that made the operative link display. JFHJr (㊟) 03:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That page was a mess of BLP violations. I've gone in and tried to adhere to the current state of WP:BLPCRIME requirements for people accused of crimes who are otherwise non-notable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This deletion seems to be an example of what is described as a common misapplication in WP:LOWPROFILE. He is notable per WP definition of notable. The three conditions in WP:BLP1E are not met.

Would you consider reverting your deletion? Mikewem (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

If you believe you can create an article on the subject that will survive AfD I suggest you start at AfC. 07:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, the motivation of the crime is separate from the suspect, charged, or convicted. I think I mentioned in that or another discussion on the talk page that it would be reasonable to wait for a hate crime charge to be added to emphasize that, but noting the attack is antisemitic (or what have you) does not necessarily implicate any suspect as being so. Metallurgist (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Twelve Tribes of Israel (Rastafari)

Although I think this is a notable organisation, eg [10], at the moment is claims living people are members and I'm not sure the sources is enough for that.. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the source provided is fine, its a daily paper in Jamaica. I went ahead and added the archive link and cleaned up the article a bit. That article definitely could use more sourcing. Metallurgist (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Arabelle Raphael

There is an ongoing dispute at User talk:Trillfendi as to how to categorize Arabelle Raphael's nationality. She was apparently born in France and has resided in California since the age of five. Sources are vague on her exact nationality and green card status:

• The Daily Beast: Arabelle Raphael, a Bay Area-based sex worker and activist
• BBC News: Part Iranian and Tunisian porn star Arabelle Raphael, 25
• KQED: Raphael emigrated to the Bay Area from France with her parents when she was five.

The subject described herself on Twitter as a French immigrant of Persian, Jewish and Tunisian descent who grew up in the Bay Area.

MOS:NATIONALITY gives the example of Isaac Asimov as someone who immigrated to the US as a child and is described as American. In that case I think we should also describe Raphael as American. Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Any confirmation that she is an American citizen or even permanent resident? Also fleshbot isn't a RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The best thing to do is probably just take it out until there is a clear source of her nationality and citizenship, which is what it looks like someone has done. Metallurgist (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review/Deletion - Janet Tavakoli

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 the subject of the Wikipedia page Janet Tavakoli which was created without my knowledge or request. The page currently displays a notability banner, and I'd like to address some concerns about the page's status and content.

• • Primary Request:** Given the notability concerns indicated by the banner, I would prefer the page be removed entirely, as I never claimed to meet Wikipedia's notability standards.

• • Alternative:** If editors determine the page should remain based on available sources, I can provide verified third-party references that may help address the sourcing and notability concerns:

• • Television and Media Appearances:**
• "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," C-SPAN Washington Journal, December 10, 2010 - discussed federal regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [11]

• "Q&A with Janet Tavakoli," C-SPAN, April 16, 2009 - hour-long interview program. [12]

• "Get Briefed," Forbes, April 24, 2009 - Steve Forbes interview. [13]

• "Did Goldman Commit Fraud?" CBS Evening News, April 16, 2010 - Katie Couric interview about SEC lawsuit against Goldman Sachs.

• "JP Morgan's risky business," CBC News, July 13, 2012. [14]

• • Published Works:**
• Credit Derivatives (John Wiley & Sons, 1998) - Currently in its third edition
• Collateralized Debt Obligations and Structured Finance (John Wiley & Sons, 2003) - Currently in its second edition

• • Media Coverage:**
• Multiple substantive quotes in financial publications beyond passing references
• Complete list available at: https://www.tavakolistructuredfinance.com/press/

• • Additional Issue:** I recently received a suspicious email from "Wiki Crafter" claiming they could "fix" my page for payment. This appears to be a scam targeting people with Wikipedia pages - others may want to be aware of such solicitations.

• • Request if Page Retained:** If the page is kept and updated, I would appreciate protection from unauthorized edits to maintain accuracy.

I understand Wikipedia's mission and editorial independence. Please let me know if additional information is needed regarding my request for page removal, or if there are other steps I should take.

Thank you for your consideration. Requester123 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Janet – I haven't reviewed the article thoroughly, but at a glance it looks to me as though you do meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. That said, none of the sources you have provided help establish that further than those already in the article – they seem to all be interviews with you/your media appearances, which while they might help verify claims in the article, do not help establish if you are or are not notable. For that we need sources which are entirely independent of you (i.e. things written about you but not substantially based on interviews with you).
  Regarding the email you have received: you are correct that this is a scam. The advice for this situation is to forward the email to [email protected] (cf. WP:SCAM and WP:BEWARESCAM). I will watchlist the article about you, but if you do notice any edits which do introduce errors do raise them on this page or at Talk:Janet Tavakoli. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response. I appreciate you taking the time to review my request and for watchlisting the article.

  However, I believe there may be a misunderstanding about my position. My primary request remains the removal of the Wikipedia page entirely. I am not seeking to prove notability, as I never claimed to meet Wikipedia's notability standards in the first place. The page was created without my knowledge or consent, and I would prefer it simply be deleted.

  The current article quality speaks for itself, which is precisely why it attracts scam operators who prey on subjects with poorly maintained pages. Rather than asking me to invest time and effort into improving or sourcing an article I never wanted, the most straightforward solution would be removal.

  I understand that much of the coverage about my work exists behind paywalls, making it difficult to provide easily accessible independent sources. For example, Paul J. Davies wrote in *The Financial Times* (February 22, 2009) reviewing my book *Dear Mr. Buffett*:

  "This is hardly the first time Tavakoli has made such arguments. The book is littered with references to her many cameos in both print and broadcast media - including in the Financial Times and a couple of times in my own articles. There is a healthy dose of 'I told you so' about this volume - but, to be fair, Tavakoli is one of the few who did."

  Here is another example behind a paywall: “Buffett, Tavakoli Flag Ponzi Scheme Bigger Than Madoff’s,” Bloomberg News – March 5, 2009

  https://www.bloomberg.com/tosv2.html?vid=&uuid=0cf6e670-3809-11ea-9ec1-df58fdc18e18&url=L25ld3MvYXJ0aWNsZXMvMjAwOS0wMy0wNS9idWZmZXR0LXRhdmFrb2xpLWZsYWctc2NoZW1lLWJpZ2dlci10aGFuLW1hZG9mZi1z

  Similarly, other publications have covered my work, though these articles are also behind paywalls. My interactions with Warren Buffett, including our correspondence about financial issues and his invitation for me to sign books at the Berkshire Annual Meeting, have been documented, but again, much of this coverage is not freely accessible online.

  Given these circumstances, and considering that Wikipedia created this page without my input, I respectfully maintain my request for page deletion rather than engaging in what feels like a circular process of trying to justify notability I never claimed to possess.

  Could you please advise on the next steps for requesting deletion, or direct me to the appropriate process for this request?

  Thank you for your understanding. Requester123 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - BLP subjects may request deletion of their articles through Articles for deletion or requesting that a member of the Volunteer Response Team do so. Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests. Factors weighing in favor of deletion include a problematic article history, real-world harms identified by the subject, and the subject being only minimally notable or notable for only one event. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  I tried using the "talk" section of the article in 2013 (see below). More interaction with Wikipedia seems counterproductive. In my opinion, Wikipedia remains a failed experiment. Here's the response from 2013:

  P 66.146.223.206 has posted This note is from Janet Tavakoli. I did not seek the Wikipedia profile shown below, and I have nothing to do with the posting of the content other than this note. After I wrote a Huffington Post commentary about Wikipedia being an unreliable resource,"Warning! Wikipedia Will Make Your Financial IQ Drop," especially for finance, this note about "Notability" appeared on this unsolicited profile of me. This seems retaliatory on the part of Wikipedia's so-called editors. Please remove this unauthorize biography of me. This epitomized why, in my opinion, Wikipedia is a failed experiment."

  Here is a link to the article she refers to [1]

  I have removed the notability tag, she's obviously notable. I do wish she would become a Wikipedia editor, I agree with so much fron her Huffington Post article on Wikipedia's failings on financial coverage. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Requester123 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2025 (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.

Now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Tavakoli. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Bhramar Mukherjee

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.

---

{{Admin help}} My Wikipedia page that has existed for nearly ten years was suddenly deleted without any discussion or reason. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.130.14 (talk)

The page was not deleted, it was moved to draftspace. Also, nobody owns any Wikipedia page, even if they are a major contributor to said page. We are a collaborative project. Also make sure to sign your comments using ~~~~. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 02:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. Look forward to rewrites 216.49.130.14 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Bhramar Mukherjee

The draft article has WP:PRIMARY trash for references and looks like a CV or an autobiography. I'm not sure it even belongs in draft space. It probably should be deleted for real. JFHJr (㊟) 02:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

A cursory glance suggests that this article might meet the notability threshhold, but would require some reworking to meet our requirements. I'm going to leave a note over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and see what shakes out. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ser, its an extreme pleasure to see you here. Wh67890 (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Mukherjee holds a named chair at Yale School of Public Health, so WP:NACADEMIC should be met. The issue is the way the article has been written and sourced but I see no reason why re-writes can't be done in mainspace, where it was previously located. The article subject should only make edit requests if adding content once back in mainspace, as explained at WP:ASFAQ. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

In addition, I don't believe that User:HRShami should have draftified the article since WP:DRAFTNO says that this should not be done when articles are older than 90 days: this one was created in 2019. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Also passes WP:ACADEMIC based on National Academy of Medicine and American Association for the Advancement of Science membership. Jahaza (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wh67890: Thank you kindly. I'd come around a bit more frequently; it's just that on the rare occasions that I do manage to find time to write an article these days, my subjects tend to be of the dead variety, if not the extremely dead. (For myself, I'd leifer be quick than dead...and thanks for the opportunity to deploy one of my favorite obscure references...)) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Well said. Wh67890 (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm also a bigger fan of the pretty dead and quite dead. Biographically speaking. JFHJr (㊟) 01:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Ser and JFHJr, I'm a member of the same club. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: OP/IP/subject says she wants her article republished for her upcoming presentation. What. Why. JFHJr (㊟) 04:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

...if a subject claims the mere presence of an article here is professionally important, things are pretty backwards. She's in WP:NOTCV territory for needing us for her presentation. JFHJr (㊟) 05:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

We have a policy that we should be kind to article subjects. I don't think that moving a biography to draft, against advice at WP:DRAFTNO, is being kind. If the article is poor but its subject is notable then it should be improved in mainspace. I agree that we don't need to respond to deadlines imposed by its subject but her complaint was the draftification: the article already existed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I wrote this article in return for payment. I was told by an admin that I should move all my undisclosed paid contributions to draft space, which is why I drafted the article. I have now edited the draft and submitted it for review.HRShami (talk) HRShami (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@HRShami Thanks for the clarification. I don't think that was the correct advice from the admin per WP:DRAFTNO but it doesn't matter now. I assume the new draft will be accepted given that WP:NACADEMIC is clearly met. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and did that per WP:NACADEMIC. The content and editorial practices are still up for discussion. JFHJr (㊟) 02:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

When I accepted publication, the article got auto-curated. I took another 3 minutes or so to review and confirm curation for publication. @HRShami makes good edits but should always state PE at the outset at talk and not so much retrospectively in summaries. It makes a checker go check. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:19, 3 June 2025 (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.

Réhahn

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.

---

Hello, I am raising a BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) concern regarding the article Réhahn. A “Criticism” section was recently added citing a local blog-style source (Matca) and including the full name of a non-public individual (myself) in a potentially negative context, without strong secondary coverage. I believe this may violate multiple Wikipedia policies, particularly:

• WP:BLP – Content about living persons must be written with care and be well-sourced.

• WP:UNDUE – The section gives undue weight to a single, highly opinionated source.

• WP:OUTING – My full name is used, even though I’m not a public figure.

• WP:RS – The source is a non-peer-reviewed blog and may not meet reliable sourcing standards.

I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page (see User:DinhGiang), and I am not editing the article directly. I have also outlined these concerns on the article’s Talk page. I’m requesting input from experienced editors or administrators on whether this section complies with Wikipedia’s BLP standards or should be removed or rewritten for neutrality and sourcing.

Thank you for your time and consideration. DinhGiang (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2025 (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.

Baron Teynham

• Baron Teynham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please can BLPN advise if the proposed addition breaches BLP and/or if WP:BLPCRIME applies?

Link to the talk page discussion stating the content wanting to be added (which itself may breach BLP / WP:V) and discussions between the user wanting to add it, myself and an admin that dealt with the unblock of the user who wants to add the content (Aksnahar ): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baron_Teynham&oldid=1293203403#Proposal_to_Include_Published_Allegations_in_Accordance_with_BLPCRIME — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummersRising (talk • contribs) 10:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

My argument is that there is no article about the people accused of domestic violence, and thus they are low-profile individuals. (In other words, I think that being notable is a prerequisite to being considered a high-profile individual.) But some additional thoughts would be welcome. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I left a comment at the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Create a Comic Project

Create a Comic Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is having highly contentious material added, including primary sources, a direct violation of WP:BLP.The secondary sources don't mention the project and mainly concern a private figure. Same user has posted this content to other articles and user talk pages, also in violation of policy. User restored edits when they were undone. Diffs: [15] [16] [17] Dragoonfiend (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The material concerned should absolutely NOT be included in the article. Even ignoring all the other issues, there is nothing to indicate they actually refer to the same person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

This is the same issue as at #Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy below. I mentioned how inappropriate the addition was at the other user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy

Okashina Okashi – Strange Candy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is having highly contentious material added, including primary sources, a direct violation of WP:BLP. The secondary sources don't mention the comic and mainly concern a private figure. Same user has posted this content to other articles and user talk pages, also in violation of policy. User restored edits when they were undone. Diffs: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Diff from when same user posted policy violations to a user talk page unbidden about this article: [23] The edit summary of this diff also violates WP:BLP for making irrelevant allegations and needs to be removed. User provides no justification for including any of this material in the article. Dragoonfiend (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I left a message at the other user's talk. I have not yet looked at the issue, just the text added (diff) and removed. The detailed claim/fact/whatever about a person is inappropriate for an article about a webcomic. If a good source focused on the webcomic discusses why the comic has (apparently) stopped, the reason could be briefly mentioned. The mucky details are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Dragoonfiend (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Kim Soo-hyun

Is the amount of detail at Kim Soo-hyun#Grooming allegations undue, given that there is nothing substantiated as yet? The talk page is littered with fans upset that their hero is the subject of allegations and wanting the whole section deleted and while those can be dismissed, I think it's worth a check that the article is still balanced. Nthep (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it's ridiculous. @Paper9oll: You are responsible for text that you add to an article. Please check your recent edits and confirm they are in accord with the spirit of WP:BLP. Before restoring extreme allegations, find out whether a conviction has occurred. If yes, the facts of that conviction can be reported (in a due fashion). If there is no conviction, it is just gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Johnuniq You may want to check the revision history first before preemptively stating that "[I'm] responsible for text that [I] add[ed] to an article". A quick Wikiblame would show that I'm not the editor that added and/or created that section and its materials. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @TofuMuncher whom created the section on 11 March 2025, in addition to expanding it. And pinging @NelsonLee20042020, @Bloomagiliw, @D.18th, @Michi, @Randompersonediting (in order) whom contributed to that section. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: I have explained before that you are responsible for your edits. Someone else might have added gossip to an article, but if it is removed and you restored it, you are responsible because your edit put it there. Particularly with a BLP matter, it is utterly irresponsible to simply restore stuff because it was removed. You must believe thta the text is appropriate before restoring it. I looked at one the references in the article ([24]). It is 100% gossip—he said, she said, someone else said. The report states that the issue arose from a "far-right YouTube channel". There is no mention of a legal charge let alone a conviction. I have to leave Wikipedia for a while otherwise I would delete the whole section and fully protect the article until a discussion here worked out what to do. Do you know of any better references than the one I have referred to here? Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would agree to trimming the section to ensure it be balanced in terms of objectivity, considering we have not seen a conclusion to the saga itself. Personally, I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty. This is not an issue to be taken lightly in my opinion. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a side note, I wrote a lot of criminal cases on Wikipedia for the most part, and normally I would avoid writing cases that have not concluded with a conviction, unless the case garnered significant attention before trial. Applying this to the case of Kim Soo-hyun, I will not decide on whether he's guilty or not, but I tried as best as I can to put up information that did not make the content one-sided. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Since this happened weeks ago, I can't recall my exact thought process beyond my usual patrolling logic. When I see a full blanking by an IP, with a non-English (French in this case according to Google Translate) summary, on a contentious biography section that has had multiple contributors, this raises several red flags, so my standard practice is to revert such edits. For context, I have over 8,000 articles (mostly Korean-related) on my watchlist, and this is one of them; I was already aware of the section's existence. While I have edited this article in other contexts, I had not contributed (i.e. specifically adding/editing/copyediting) to this particular section. Regardless, in general, I agree that the quality of sourcing is paramount. As far as sourcing for this disputed section is concerned, I am not aware of any "better" (i.e., assuming more Western-style) sourcing from Korean news media than what is currently available; in summary, this is the typical standard of Korean media reporting. Now that concerns have been raised about sourcing and BLP compliance, I fully support trimming or removing the section if consensus agrees. As I was not the one who added this material, I believe it would be more appropriate for those who contributed to the section to take the lead on any necessary revisions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

On another note, I did some research and found that the current section, regardless of its stance, is outdated. There are several reports published after March 31 (the current section stops at this date) showing that the subject's agency has filed multiple legal complaints—citing specific laws such as defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act and stalking under the Stalking Punishment Act. At least one complaint has already resulted in a ruling from the Seoul Central District Court, according to sources published in April and May. Given these developments, the section should maybe be revised to accurately reflect the ongoing legal proceedings and court actions if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• I also agree that much detail is UNDUE, it needs to be trimmed to a summary of the allegations, his response and a brief summary of reactions. I also changed the section title and removed grooming from that sentence; it failed verification. We can not use a contentious label like that when it is not explicitly stated by the sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Reiterating what I stated on KSH's talk page (not sure why there's two concurrent discussions), in relation to "grooming", the term is supported by citations 148 and 150 in terms of English sourcing, so this is not a failed verification issue. A BEFORE indicates there are additional sourcing available, including in Korean, but as the policies states don't CITEBOMB the article just to inline support it. While the revised section headings are appropriate, I feel that outright purging the term from the section would be inappropriate and itself UNDUE—notwithstanding any broader UNDUE concerns outside of the "Receptions" section—and could play into the hands of "fans upset that their hero is the subject of allegations". As I stated above, I fully support trimming or removing contents from the section; however, we have to ensure that the final result is incomplete-but-complete, rather than half-baked, and certainly not in a way that simply appeases those fans. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think you understand what I meant by failed verification. The cited sources at the end of a sentence must clearly support the material as presented in the sentence where a contentious claim is being made. When I checked the three sources cited at the end of the sentence, they all three failed to verify the claim being made in the sentence. Our readers shouldn't be required to search the entire article looking for a source that verifies a claim being made in a sentence. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds the material and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the claim being made. So whoever added those three sources at the end of that sentence, failed to check if the cited sources verified the material they added for a contentious claim, and therefore, I removed it. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I see a lengthy discussion on the article's TALK page as well as here. At this point, even the so-called gossip media websites are beginning to change their stance. Per my understanding of BLP, this section should either be completely removed or immediately resummarized to include events past mar 31st. Otherwise, it's a gross violation of policies.

https://www.allkpop.com/article/2025/06/kim-soo-hyun-gains-public-support-amid-lack-of-evidence 2600:1700:3EC1:F600:50A1:503F:4E2B:A565 (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Subject requests deletion assistance from Volunteer

I am the subject of the Wikipedia page Janet Tavakoli which was created without my knowledge or request. I'd like the entire page to be deleted. If there are any Volunteers on this forum, I would appreciate your assistance in this matter. I added the following request to the page:

It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:

   Subject requests deletion. Page created without consent of living subject who does not claim to meet notability standards. Current article quality issues have attracted scam operators targeting the subject. Subject never sought Wikipedia coverage and prefers page removal over improvement efforts for unwanted biographical content. (proposed by Requester123)

Requester123 (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You've already been assisted and advised on how to proceed with this request - WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - BLP subjects may request deletion of their articles through Articles for deletion or requesting that a member of the Volunteer Response Team do so. Please follow those instructions. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Paul Saldino

I've created an article for diet influencer Paul Saladino and, as this is outside my field, I would be grateful for other editors reviewing it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks well sourced from what I can see. A lot of people have followed up. It could use some prose improvements for better flow. When you have too many "in (year)..." it makes for poor reading. You can incorporate the year into the text of what is being said. Metallurgist (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Dmitry Rogozin

• Dmitry Rogozin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor added the following statement to the personal life section: Rogozin was spotted giving speeches in nazi rallies and performing fascist salutes while holding white nationalist signboards in public. They cited this Medium blog written by someone with 179 followers as well as this YouTube video. They also added copyrighted images to the article (since removed by a bot). I reverted this as a potential violation of BLP.

The same editor decided to restore their edit but also added additional citations to this website and this website. I am not sure if these can be considered reliable. The first one looks to be a low-quality source. The second one is a bit better but it does not directly support the statement. Instead it just shows a social media post and the response by the subject where he dismisses the image. Mellk (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I should also note that the same editor has now decided to add the same text to another article. Mellk (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I am said editor. You can judge by yourselves, but I think that all five sources from all those articles I linked are very reliable. Mllhnkz (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If you think Medium and YouTube and molfar.com/en/blog are "very reliable" sources for a contentious claim about a living person, you probably shouldn't be editing the article at all. I support removal of the content as being poorly sourced. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely unreliable sources, this content doesn't belong on a BLP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

And what about the other three? Mllhnkz (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, isn't Rogozin, being a Russian senator representing [the Russian-annexed part of] Zaporozh'e, covered by RUSUKR in the first place? I don't think the editor who made those additions is EC. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably it falls under the restriction. I would request page protection but there has not really been any other disruption recently. We will see. Mllhnkz has already since accused me of vandalism (again) and they stated you have not listed a single reason for them to be credited as "unreliable", despite this discussion. Mellk (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Imane Khelif

There is currently a bunch of users withholding factual information that the subject is in fact male https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/7312083bfabec21c They even locked down the talk page for no apparent reason. Can someone update the page to include this crucial info? Not doing so would undermine Wikipedia's credibility. 2A00:FBC:EEC1:F44C:1822:E7B2:B796:5801 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No, someone will not update the page while discussion is ongoing at the talk page. And there was a reason given for page protection as clearly seen at the top of the talk page - Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled to promote compliance with Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living people. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Seconded: No. Seek talkpage CONSENSUS. This is not the right forum, and someone should close this. JFHJr (㊟) 06:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I was not aware that an IP had had the unmitigated chutzpah come here to demand that we introduce BLP violations into the article itself but I guess it saves me starting my own thread.

Things continue to be close to spiralling out of control on Talk:Imane Khelif. To give an idea how bad it is getting, there has been open speculation about the subject's genitals which seems so far over the line of common decency as to boggle the mind. A small number of people are keeping a lid on the BLP violations but only with difficulty and it is clearly wasting a lot their time when they could be doing something more productive. I think we could do with some more eyes on that Talk page and for repeated WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BLPTALK violators to be given a timeout if they won't tone it down when warned. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Re: Things continue to be close to spiralling out of control — I'd say we're knee-deep in the spiral at this point. That page is a headache and a half. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 22:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Reminds me of Yasuke. Just a flood of IPs and new SPAs trying to argue something clearly against Wikipedia policy.

But hopefully this gets more attention than that, since Khalif is a living person and Yasuke, obviously, is not. Loki (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Very much so. More of the ongoing culture wars. TarnishedPath^talk 03:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC: Sex Status

There is an RFC about whether we should refer to the Khelif's sex as being uncertain. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath^talk 10:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I want to participate but the page was locked down.-2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:58D7:E551:77DD:8BEC (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You probably have plenty of time to get WP:AUTOCONFIRMED before the discussion closes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Consider making an account and getting autoconfirmed. Metallurgist (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Kelsey Wang

Hey, I am posting this here on the advice of two kind editors who have helped me here.

A few weeks ago, I created Kelsey Wang, which I have nominated for GA. I worked extremely hard on it and everything I wrote was sourced from reliable sources and public interviews readily available to see online. Today, an IP claiming to be an actress removed 2/3 of the content due to it being "personal/innacurate". I assumed it was a hoax but the actress then messaged me on Instagram (I assume because I am one of her 10000 followers, she saw my first name and assumed it was me that wrote it) and has asked me to remove some information. What shall I do regarding this? I am quite stressed and unsure of what to do. I do not mind removing specific information if it is not too important to the article but I do not want to remove 2/3 of the information like it was originally, and I also do not want this to be a conflict of interest - especially since I nominated this for GA and would like it to pass. I am sorry for the sudden message, I am panicking a lot as I am worried about getting in trouble.

The actress has asked to remove the following information on the IP page and in messages to me:

1.) Information about her education and non acting jobs

2.) Information about how she found her General Hospital experience

3.) The quote box about diversity in television

She also added a few unsourced statements but I can't find reliable sources for these so I will not readd them.

I am happy to remove this information and retain the other stuff that she has not requested to remove, but I wanted to check on her for advice as I do not want to cause any issues for the article or the actress or cause a COI myself. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

She needs to post here at WP:BLPN, at the article talk page, or at WP:VRT. Asking you to become her proxy is not the way to do it, for either of you. We have editors who are happy to help. Please direct her to this comment. JFHJr (㊟) 02:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll also observe: this subject pays editors. See the talkpage. JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

For ease of reference: the IP in question is 47.177.5.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — BE243 (about | talk) 03:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I have messaged the actress on the IP page and via instagram to ask to request here. I am unsure if she saw either request but she has now made an account and posted on the talk page her (Talk:Kelsey Wang) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Subject needs to read WP:EDITREQUEST or pay someone to do so. JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Also noting: subject requests deletion if she can't have it her way. If anyone wants to port the forum to AfD, please leave us a note. JFHJr (㊟) 04:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, the version that Wang proposed on the article talk page[25] is just a better biography without so much WP:UNDUE detail sourced to niche publications. The article just needs to be pruned. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue is fixed now – all of the issues that the actress had have now been fixed. The article is a GA nomination so any additional details that may not be needed can be assessed by a case by case basis during the review now that the BLP request has been addressed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe WP:BLPBALANCE issues still remain with WP:FANCRUFT and does not need to wait for a GA review to be addressed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Jonathan Joss murder suspect naming

Joss, a voice actor for one of the characters on King of the Hill, was shot and killed on June 1st after a disagreement with a neighbor. The neighbor was subsequently arrested, charged with murder, and named by the media. I've removed the name under BLPCRIME a few times since it was a breaking story but wanted to address if it should actually be included here. Awshort (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Joe Benning

Dear Wikipedia:

In 2022 I had a campaign website that you've listed in the above article. (The site was JoeBenning.com) That site was surrendered after the campaign ended in November of 2022. Unfortunately it appears to have been taken over by a malicious site. The campaign no longer exists, so I'd appreciate your removing the link from your article on me. Thank you. Joe Benning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:477F:2507:354A:9831:DC01:E881 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Sean Lally

Disclosure: I have been paid to write this draft. I submitted a draft on an architect, Sean Lally. He has won the Rome Prize. I wrote this thinking that WP:NPROF applies, whereby Rome Prize would be seen as confirming notability. However, after the draft has been declined, I realize that the topic might not fall under NPROF and maybe more appropriate for WP:ARCHITECT. However, WP:ARCHITECT does not have "winning an important award" as a criteria. WP:ANYBIO, on the other hand, does mention winning a major award as a notability criteria. I have two questions. What would be the appropriate criteria here? And does wining Rome Prize makes one notable? The American Academy in Rome's official website has been used as reference for confirming the award. HRShami (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

As the name suggests, WP:ANYBIO applies to any biographical article. Essentially, if Lally meets either WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARCHITECT he is likely to be notable. He doesn't have to meet both. (Indeed, if he meets WP:BASIC he doesn't have to meet either.) I don't know enough about the Rome Prize to have a strong opinion on whether it is a sufficiently important award to count for ANYBIO, but the most recent deletion discussion I could find to mention that the subject was the recipient of the Rome Prize was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Herbert Armstrong, which closed as delete; at least two other AfDs for Rome Prize recipients have closed as delete despite the prize being discussed in the AfD ([26], [27]). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. From the deletion discussions, it's clear that a Rome Prize winner is not considered notable just because of receiving the award. HRShami (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Victims of rape

Category creator blocked as ban-evading user; category speedy deleted per WP:G5. No longer relevant Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

A new user, Ortiz de Vilhegas, has created the Category:Victims of rape[28] and added several BLPs to it.[29] I have concerns about WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPCRIME where the alleged rape may be disputed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC) I don't assume that the category is inherently flawed; there may well be individuals who are known primarily for the incident. However, for most victims of this sadly common crime, we have a WP:CATDEF problem. Having been raped is just one factor in their lives, it is not defining either in inherent vast import to who they are or in a reflection of who they are, as they did not choose to be raped. As such, this should likely be kept even from the articles that mentioned a rape. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC) Does it matter if it doesn't define them, whatever that means? Ignoring that is like raping them a second time. The Spanish Wikipedia also has a though euphemistic Category, from where I started my work: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor%C3%ADa:Sobrevivientes_de_violaci%C3%B3n. Ortiz de Vilhegas (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Ignoring that is like raping them a second time. If you think that not including wikipedia articles in Category:Victims of rape is in any way comparable to actually raping people you absolutely need to stop editing in this topic area. How insulting to actual victims of rape. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC) No, ignoring is insulting. Ortiz de Vilhegas (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Please refrain from excited rhetoric and express your view on this in a calm and composed way, consistent with Wikipedia:Etiquette. —Alalch E. 12:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC) I'm not excited and it's not rhetoric. I'm calm, I just can't show it through what I write, but I assure you I'm perfectly calm. In any case, not being calm isn't the same as lack of etiquette, a ridiculous thing though, since I didn't not do use any insulting terms while here. Ortiz de Vilhegas (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC) When you ask a question such as Does it matter if it doesn't define them, whatever that means, please be willing to listen to the answer. You have asked a question. You will now receive the answer. The official Wikipedia answer is: Categories exist to provide navigational links to pages in Wikipedia within a tree-like hierarchy. They are based on essential, defining characteristics of a topic. Articles are only categorized according to the topic's defining characteristics; such a characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. The above answer is based on the Wikipedia guideline on Categories, that was already shown to you earlier in this discussion. You need to read it. The editor who started this discussion is concerned about the use of this category in those article where the alleged rape may be disputed. The first editor who responded, Nat Gertler, was separately concerned that this category may (that there is a potential for it) to be applied on articles on topics which do not have rape as a defining characteristic, which would be an incorrect use of the category system, inconsistent with its navigational purpose. —Alalch E. 12:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC) What it matters is if it's important or not. And rape is important. People would want to know without having to search for it too much, and it's important to show how epidemic it is. Again, it's reliably grounded. For the cases where the accusation wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, the Category I created already states that it includes even such cases. Ortiz de Vilhegas (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Rape is important. This is evident on Wikipedia through the inclusion of many articles on rape. In addition to the general article about rape, there are many more articles that cover this topic in great detail. Links to them are in Category:Rape, Outline of human sexuality#Sexual assault, Template:Rape sidebar, Template:Rapefooter, etc. Clearly, rape has the status of an important topic on Wikipedia. This is already evident. It is proven through the existence of these articles. Deciding which articles about people to add to the victims of rape category is not one of the way to ensure that rape is seen as important on Wikipedia; it is unrelated to the importance of rape. Remember, categories only serve a navigational function. —Alalch E. 12:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Facts are not victimization. And yet one more absurd Wikirule... I concede that sometimes the accusation is unproven, but so it is when victims claim to have been raped and don't mention the perpetrator. Ortiz de Vilhegas (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC) If this is kept, I don't think "people" like Tamar (daughter of David) fits very well, no more than say Leda (mythology). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Tamar is real. Ortiz de Vilhegas (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC) She is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The extent to which she existed is unknowable (for historians). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC) The Spanish Wikipedia considers her and Dinah to be real. The rest is just an atheist agenda. Ortiz de Vilhegas (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Welcome to en-WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Truth has no geographical latitude. Ortiz de Vilhegas (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC) The only issue here is that, while I was adding the category, surfaced some categories I didn't know about, such as Rape in the United States. Being more specific, perhaps they should be merged or redistributed in some way in order to conciliate them. Ortiz de Vilhegas (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC) OP is now blocked for violating WP:EVADE. --Yamla (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unusual biographical images

• about a dispute at a BLP-related essay: Wikipedia:Unusual biographical images
• discussed at:
  • Wikipedia talk:Unusual biographical images#Susan Kare
  • Wikipedia talk:Unusual biographical images#A lot of the photos used in this page ...
• concerning the image: File:SusanKare2019photo.jpg

There is an unusual dispute regarding the use of images of living people in an essay arguing that there is a perverse incentive leading to BLP-questionable images being added to many articles. It includes a gallery of some of the worst images illustrating biographies; this gallery illustrates the systemic problem discussed in the essay. An editor is treating the page as a "project" instead of an essay, using it as a list of articles with images that they believe should be improved (as they should). In doing so, he is repeatedly adding back a particular image which is not an "unusual biographical image" under any definition (it is a very usual and average low-quality image). About this, I am seriously concerned; I have said: adding this image in this context potentially suggests that there is something wrong with how the subject appears in it, when the subject appears normal in it, and that it can lead to an undesirable and problematic message. The editor will basically not hear it, and rejects the idea that they cannot unilaterally, in spite of objections, which I consider serious BLP objections (even though the issue is subtle and involves subjectivity), enforce inclusion of the image. I would like editors at BLPN to give their opinion on using the image in this context.—Alalch E. 10:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Please also see discussion here about the broader purpose of the WP:UBI page itself, as well as the Talk page of Susan Kare article (NB: a somewhat pointless invitation to UBI without the photo of Kare being included in UBI, alas). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Inna Zhvanetskaya

• Inna Zhvanetskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reverted this article to an earlier revision as a long series of edits by a WP:SPA were largely unsourced and contained personal reflections and observations. If anyone feels inclined to see if any of this can be rescued, I am sure it would be appreciated. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of it can be used, but there is so much random conspiranoid anti-vaxxer garbage mixed in that it is going to take a good while to rescue the useful stuff. I may take a look at it later. Ostalgia (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Luke Stricklin

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'm not convinced Luke Stricklin is notable. While he did chart on Top Country Albums and Hot Country Songs, both peaks are very low and sourcing is even lower.

• The only source in the article is a Joel Whitburn book which lists everyone who ever charted on Hot Country Songs. While this book does confirm Stricklin's DOB and place of origin, it gives no other info beyond the existence of the charting song. Furthermore, charting isn't an ironclad guarantee of notability
• The only relevant article I could find on newspapers.com was a 2005 Scripps Howard press release about "American by God's Amazing Grace" and Stricklin's military service.
• Searches before 2005 on newspapers.com turned up nothing but false positives, and after 2005, I found only his birthday being listed in the Associated Press "On this day" column.
• Searches for his other song, "Does That Make Me Bad", do not turn up any results whatsoever on newspapers.com or Google Books.
• The only results on worldradiohistory.com, an archive of music magazines, turned up only ads for the single and copies of Billboard where it charted.

In short, this seems to be a case like Brad Wolf, Lisa Shaffer, Waycross (band) (now a redirect), or Cooter Brown (singer) where placement on Hot Country Songs alone was not notable enough to keep the article around. I'm throwing this out here to see if anyone can find any sourcing I couldn't, or offer suggestions as to what should be done. Pinging @Caldorwards4:, @Sammi Brie:, @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, @Jackedano:. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• The perhaps most telling detail is in an article I found in VFW magazine in 2012 (ProQuest 956847636) on music from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. There's a short section on Stricklin, but it ends, While Stricklin's single did hit No. 64 on the country music charts, he did not go on to become a major recording artist.. There are some minor news articles and one in VFW magazine from 2005, but it's kind of like BLP1E but for songs. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you testing the limits of your editing restriction again through BLPN proxy?[30] Paging @Barkeep49:@ScottishFinnishRadish:@Johnuniq:@Red-tailed hawk: Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

This is disappointing, just spent some time researching to come to the same conclusion Sammi Brie has that this appears much like a WP:BLP1E. Sources about Stricklin contextualized by his single are easily found [31][32][33][34], but there doesn't seem anything independent of the single to establish notability. Not sure what happens now. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2025 (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.

Mike Sussman (TV series writer/producer)

Someone has twice changed the birth year of the subject of this article from 1975 (verified by his IMDb page, which is linked below) to 1955, which is incorrect.

Wiki page: Mike Sussman (TV series writer/producer)

IMDb page (with correct birth year): Mike Sussman at IMDb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Original trekker (talk • contribs) 02:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't consider IMDB a WP:RS. Per WP:DOB, it could be removed altogether (category as well). JFHJr (㊟) 03:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

See also WP:IMDB and WP:CITINGIMDB. I've gone ahead and removed the DOB as unsourced. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Deborah Hutton (Australian editor)

It says she was lovers with Dani Roach and Deborah is only interested in men. Could you please remove it? Thank you. 2001:8003:5951:F500:59D0:266D:EECA:EF72 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced. JFHJr (㊟) 04:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I also found this at Danni Roche and removed it with an actual source. The title alone got close enough to WP:TELEGRAPH row two for removal. JFHJr (㊟) 04:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Not going to object to the removal but fairly sure given the URL and subject matter that's the unrelated Daily Telegraph (Sydney) so none of the RSPS stuff applies. Nil Einne (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) in one of Murdoch's tabloids. I'm generally cautious about using it in BLPs depending on the claims made. TarnishedPath^talk 05:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

YouTube suspensions

YouTube suspensions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think the article YouTube suspensions should be reviewed for verifitability, especially since this big article is full of contentious statements about living persons. I see unreliable sources like Sportskeeda being cited in some sections, and I have tried to deal with a few of the BLP issues myself, but I think I will need some help here. CarlFilip19 (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Does that pass WP:NLIST? Just doing a quick search I couldn't find anything that discusses YouTube suspended persons as a class. TarnishedPath^talk 05:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not know if the article passes WP:NLIST. It has been created in inspiration of Twitter suspensions. CarlFilip19 (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Stephen Bassett (ufologist)

Regarding Stephen Bassett (ufologist) I am Stephen Bassett. The article/bio is filled with inaccuracies and biased. I had nothing to do with the article/bio. My work has been referenced in almost 600 news article. I have given around 1500 interviews on the issues I am addressing. The article/bio simply cherry picked a few items from all of this content to support a negative bias toward me and my work. Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:4986:8100:C809:E5DC:5555:342E (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Greetings! I'm sorry that you are distressed about the state of the biography. I understand that you'd like the article deleted. Unfortunately, this is not the deletion forum. Your best options are 1) to contact WP:VRT to verify your identity privately and request an administrator consider opening a deletion discussion on your behalf; or 2) to register an account here and start the deletion process yourself (see WP:BEFORE). Because you have a stated conflict of interest, you should refrain from editing the article about you. Specific edit requests can be made at the article talkpage. See also WP:ABOUTYOU for ways you can help build the biography into something better. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

OP has alleged at Talk:Stephen Bassett (ufologist) that he is indeed 1) the subject of the article; and 2) a previously blocked user from over 10 years ago who is editing logged out instead of socking under a new account. Meanwhile, another editor and I have been questioning the extensive use of quotation markup in references that present both WP:COPYVIO and WP:UNDUE (negative) content. The creator (admin) pushes back in favor of including long tracts of copyright material in ref quote markup. More eyes please. JFHJr (㊟) 22:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Concerns about unsourced content in Sushant K.C article

Hello,

I would like to raise concerns regarding the Sushant K.C article. While the article presents biographical information and career highlights of the Nepali singer-songwriter, some statements appear to lack reliable secondary sources.

Specifically:

• Certain career milestones, such as awards and streaming figures, are either uncited or rely on primary/self-published sources (e.g., social media posts, interviews not from established outlets).
• Some educational details, including references to his studies at Berklee College of Music and prior institutions, are either unsourced or poorly sourced.
• There are also some promotional-sounding phrases that may violate the neutrality expected under WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

Given that this biography is of a living person, I’m concerned that the article may not currently meet WP:BLP compliance, especially regarding verifiability and the removal of contentious or unsourced material.

Could experienced editors review the article for sourcing and neutrality issues? Suggestions for improvement or reliable sources are also welcome.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiConDraft (talk • contribs) 12:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BEBOLD and WP:BRD, if you are able to identify a problem (particularly unsourced claims), then you are also capable of fixing them (removing unsourced). It looks like you did a wonderful job doing just that! But I noticed no talkpage discussion has occurred about sourcing, neutrality, and verifiability. BLPN is usually a forum of last resort, when consensus fails to form on the talkpage. I'll be happy to post at the talkpage for the best discussion forum for this article. JFHJr (㊟) 19:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@WikiConDraft: Since you are the article's creator and (until yesterday) the only one who has worked on it, it kind of begs the question where you got the information from? It is also relevant that Sushant KC has been deleted half a dozen times after it was created by various undeclared paid editors. Is that why you chose a slightly different title? --bonadea contributions talk 11:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. I’d like to clarify a few important points regarding the article on Sushant K.C.:

The information in the article is based on reliable sources such as Rolling Stone India, MyRepublica, OnlineKhabar (English), and The Kathmandu Post, which are among Nepal’s major news outlets.

I used the title “Sushant K.C.” instead of “Sushant KC” because, in Nepali naming conventions, “K.C.” includes periods, just like in the article for Nepali actor Anmol K.C. This reflects how the artist himself stylizes his name in music credits and interviews.

The biographical notes board was created by mistake and I’m happy to correct any formatting or categorization errors.

I have no paid connection to this article or the artist. I do not gain any profit or personal benefit from creating or editing this article. My only intention is to contribute accurate, verifiable, and neutral information about notable Nepali personalities to Wikipedia.

Sushant K.C. is a widely known singer in Nepal and has recently collaborated with Indian record label T-Series, which adds to his notability. Still, I’m committed to making sure every claim is properly sourced and not promotional.

If there are any specific issues with references or neutrality, I am happy to work with other editors to improve the article. Thank you. WikiConDraft 14:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@WikiConDraft so you're unpaid for this subject, but perhaps paid elsewhere, per COI template? JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

J. Steven Rhodes

i believe this poorly sourced article, potentially defamatory and libelous (i.e. opened ended statement including "illegal drugs") is problematic and should be removed. [[35]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpcontribuser (talk • contribs) 00:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I used the WaPo article to cite his confirmation and resignation. Since the allegation was not widely documented in reliable sources per BLP, I removed that. BlackPast.org had the date wrong, since congressional records state he was confirmed as ambassador in March 1990, as does The Washington Post. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Toby Perkins

The box, introduction, and Parliamentary Career section needs updating with Toby Perkins' new position of Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. He was elected chair and assumed office on 11 September 2024. He was preceded by the Rt Hon Philip Dunne MP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.161.4.84 (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The article is not page protected, so feel free to update the article yourself with inline citations to reliable sources that verify the content you add and/or change. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)