Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, you are overcomplicating this issue and are putting too much focus on her Japanese ancestry. As per Article 20 of the Peruvian Civil Code "The child has the first surname of the father and the first surname of the mother", and it is sourced by Associated Press that individuals of Spain and Latin America must legally use this surname formatting when their birth is registered.^[1] Hence, it is correct to use "Hispanic American" as she is not a national of Spain using a Spanish naming custom, but that she is a Peruvian national legally having the naming customs stipulated by Peruvian law and one that is widely used in Latin America (which is similarly modeled after Spain and that Peru is located in Latin America).

Simply put, it is common knowledge that "Keiko", "Fujimori" and "Higuchi" are not Spanish origin names, they are Japanese. But as RachelTensions puts it, the hatnote explains the specific legal naming structure used for individuals who are citizens/born in Hispanic America, it is not there to tell the reader that the respective names are inherently Spanish and what not. Hispanic America is an historically acceptable term to refer to the Spanish speaking countries in Latin America (as per these sources:^[2][3]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:NatGertler, you think it's fine to hide sourced information to support a falsehood?[1] Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am the subject of David Haigh (COI declared on my user page; I am using edit requests, not direct edits). On 6 July 2026 an editor comprehensively rewrote the article (edit-filter tagged as a possible BLP issue). The rewrite presents litigation against me as ending with enforcement and bankruptcy in 2020–21 and omits that every claim was dismissed by consent orders on 21 March 2025, as reported by The Times on 24 June 2026 — twelve days before the rewrite, whose citations carry access-dates of 6 July 2026. I reverted it (disclosed on the article talk page) and have filed a request edit to add the dismissals with the Times citation. My detailed concerns are set out point by point on Talk:David Haigh. Requesting review by uninvolved editors of both the rewrite and the request; I can verify identity and provide the court orders via VRT. Davidhaighuk (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Notwithstanding your concerns about the need for an update, this version that you reverted despite your COI does appear to be a substantial cleanup and improvement. Your objections on the talkpage are noted and don't need to be repeated here. Your revert contained a lot of BLP violations itself. I'll wait a while for input from others before restoring that cleaned-up version.

Your talkpage edit request regarding the update cites a paywalled source, which interferes with WP:V for me. The wayback archive of the URL was also unhelpful. If any other editor can verify the source (Baksi, Catherine (24 June 2026). "David Haigh: I expected a James Bond type to get me out of jail". The Times.) please review the edit request and see if the prose matches the source. If so, please mark the edit request answered and add the prose. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 21:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've restored the cleanup version as the last most WP:BLP compliant version. Additions and updates can be made by non-COI editors if they're verified and reliably sourced. JFHJr (㊟) 02:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for looking at this — I'll keep it brief here and have consolidated everything in one place at Talk:David Haigh#Consolidated response and requested corrections (from the article subject).

On verification: per WP:PAYWALL, paywalled sources remain verifiable. The Times is available to editors through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library (ProQuest and Gale carry it), the article also ran in The Times print edition, and a copy can be requested at WP:RX. The underlying fact — the dismissal of all of GFH's claims — rests on court orders (High Court CL-2014-000603, CL-2017-000058 and CL-2023-000121; DIFC CFI-020/2014, each dated 21 March 2025), which are public court documents; I have offered copies via VRT, and my identity is VRT-verified (ticket 2026071710007016).

On the rewrite: my concern is set out in the consolidated post — whatever version stands should not omit the March 2025 dismissals, should not apply qualifiers no source uses, and should not recite untested allegations in detail.

On my revert: point taken — it predated this account, I disclosed it the same day, and everything from me now comes by edit request.

Finally — you mention the restored version contains BLP issues of its own. I'd genuinely welcome specifics: I have no attachment to the old text, and I'll fold whatever you identify into the consolidated request on the talk page so that whichever version editors settle on, both sets of problems get fixed at once. ~2026-40383-94 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please remember to log in. Forgetting to do so results in a rather naked look, and disrupts continuity because we are only invited to assume authorship. Let's stay consistent. Please also stop inserting random line breaks in your replies; if you're pasting them from some app, you're responsible for cleanup before posting. Otherwise it's disruptive. Please finally give this time for other editors to evaluate. JFHJr (㊟) 01:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I made the 6 July rewrite of David Haigh, which the subject reverted on 17 July. For the record, I have no connection to Haigh or GFH and no conflict of interest. I came to the article because it read as poorly structured and promotional. I should also say I was not aware of the June 2026 Times report when I made the rewrite; the omission of the 2025 dismissal was an oversight rather than a considered choice. I'm not going to respond to Mr Haigh's points line by line. But I think it's hard to argue that the version I posted was not an improvement on what preceded it, and I'm surprised that his response to having misgivings about parts of it was to revert to the earlier version wholesale, rather than to raise those points and let them be addressed. He himself accepts that the earlier version was in need of substantial improvement. Four points do stand out though:

1. Direct comparison. The restored version omits the 2020 English enforcement judgment, the refusal of permission to appeal, the bankruptcy, the 2021 repossession and the SRA proceedings entirely. It ends the DIFC account at "GFH said it would start enforcement proceedings", and places Cooke J's findings under a heading reading "Torture in Dubai". It states Mr Haigh's denial twice, in near-identical wording, without recording what the courts made of it. In GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh [2020] EWHC 1269 (Comm), Henshaw J held that Mr Haigh could not establish any case that the DIFC claim was fictitious (§86), that his attempt to re-run those allegations was an abuse of process and hopeless on the merits (§91), and quoted Cooke J's finding that he "is a fraudster" who caused GFH's monies to be paid into his own account and that of a close friend (§30). The same judgment records, at §89, that the 2017 Scottish findings were made without GFH being heard and do not amount to a binding finding as between the parties. Whatever the merits of the 2025 point, the version now live is obviously not the more BLP-compliant of the two.

2. The litigation update. I accept the 2025 dismissal should be recorded, and I was not aware of it. But a dismissal by consent following a confidential settlement records that the parties agreed to stop; it is not a finding that the claims were bad, and it does not disturb the 2018 DIFC findings, the enforcement judgments or the bankruptcy. Whether GFH recovered anything is a separate question again. It belongs in the litigation section, worded neutrally, not in the lead.

3. The SRA passage. I don't accept it needed trimming. It stated the allegation the SRA brought and the fact that the Tribunal stayed the proceedings on medical grounds, in the same sentence. That is the conservative treatment BLP asks for. The proposed alternative removes the substance of the allegation altogether.

4. "Human rights lawyer". I take the MOS:DOUBT point about "self-described" and would rather avoid the qualifier. But "lawyer" is not a protected title in England and Wales, and the SRA register already cited in the article records that he does not hold a practising certificate. Anyone can self-describe as a "human rights lawyer". I'd prefer the lead be precise rather than adopt shorthand from news copy: if we're being accurate, Mr Haigh is a non-practising solicitor who has campaigned on detention and human rights issues in the UAE. Mr Haigh offers Lisa Bloom as a model, but she is an admitted attorney in active practice and "attorney" is a regulated designation in the United States, so the descriptor in her lead reflects what she is licensed to do. The position here is the reverse.

On process: the version now live is the one the subject restored to the article about himself. WP:COI is clear that an editor with a conflict of interest should propose changes on the talk page rather than decide unilaterally which version of the article stands, and a BLP concern about an omission is answered by adding the omitted material, not by reverting a rewrite wholesale. I'd ask that the 6 July version be restored, with the 2025 dismissal added and any remaining concerns dealt with on their merits. I'm not going to do it myself, since I'm involved and a re-revert would only produce a pointless back and forth, so I'd be grateful if an uninvolved editor would action it. Leodensians (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. The confirmation of no connection is accepted, as is the acknowledgment that the March 2025 dismissals should be recorded. Since my last comment I have assembled the sourcing that I hope resolves the remaining points, and I set it out here for uninvolved editors.

On the litigation chronology: the rewrite's account ends in 2021, with GFH taking possession of property. The court record does not end there. On 11 November 2022 the High Court ruled that the 2014 freezing injunction had expired on its own terms on 4 July 2018, ordered GFH to notify every third party of its discharge, and awarded me costs (GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh [2022] EWHC 3110 (Comm), published by the National Archives and reported the same day by Law360). GFH's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 5 February 2024 ([2024] EWCA Civ 65, also on the National Archives, reported by CDR News). On 21 March 2025 every remaining claim was dismissed (The Times, 24 June 2026). A rewrite performed in 2026 which cites the 2020 judgment with precision, but omits the 2022 ruling, the 2024 appeal and the 2025 dismissals, each of them publicly reported, presents a chronology that stops at its subject's lowest point and does not reflect the current state of the record. Whatever the intention, WP:BLP requires the ending to be told.

On the "human rights lawyer" descriptor: this does not rest on self-description. Haaretz (2 August 2021) uses "a British human rights lawyer" in its own voice, in the headline and body. The BBC (4 June 2026) writes "says lawyer". The Law Society Gazette calls me a solicitor. The SRA's public register, checked this week, records my admission on 16 September 2002 and states: "There are no disciplinary or regulatory decisions currently published about this person."

On the weight of the human rights material: Human Rights Watch documented my case in the arbitrary detention chapter of its World Report 2017. Al Jazeera reported my evidence to a parliamentary event (5 July 2017) and the raising of my case at a UN Universal Periodic Review pre-session (14 December 2017). The UN human rights office contacted me directly in February 2021 to request the Latifa footage (BBC News, 19 February 2021). A 2021 report by Sir David Calvert-Smith, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, quotes my account of detention. These are institutional sources, not sympathetic press, and the article's balance should reflect them.

I have prepared a complete, fully cited draft revision in my sandbox at User:Davidhaighuk/sandbox, offered for review and editing by uninvolved editors, not for direct publication by me. I would welcome any editor taking whatever parts of it survive scrutiny. Davidhaighuk (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

For anyone coming to this fresh: a rewrite was made on 6 July. On 17 July the subject reverted it in full. He then disclosed that he had done so, undertook not to edit the article again, and has since posted proposed changes to the version he restored, plus an offer to prepare a fresh base text in his userspace. So the live article is the one the subject put back, and the discussion is now about what to add to it. That is surely not how a conflict of interest is normally handled.

I don't want to get into the merits of it all here, but even three brief points raised by Mr Haigh above illustrate the problem with allowing a subject to draft their own entry.

The litigation chronology. The previous version said in its opening paragraphs that Mr Haigh denied everything and was set up, with nothing recording what the courts made of that. My rewrite added that the DIFC court found against him after a trial, and that the English court enforced that judgment and held he had no real prospect of showing the claim was fabricated. Mr Haigh cites 2022 and 2024 judgments, which concern the duration and scope of a freezing order, as proof that the chronology "stops at the subject's lowest point". I have no agenda here and am content for subsequent proceedings to be referenced briefly. But nothing he cites, whether the freezing injunctions or the eventual consent orders, changes what the DIFC and English courts found about the substance of the fraud claims. Getting into the weeds on injunctions doesn't really help the reader either.

Professional status. Mr Haigh's points here risk muddying the waters as to his practising status. He notes that the Law Society Gazette refers to him as a solicitor, and that the SRA register records no published disciplinary decisions. Nothing is published because the SDT proceedings were stayed before determination, not because they were resolved. The Gazette report cited in my 6 July version records that he holds no practising certificate, that the stay was indefinite with liberty to apply, and that the regulator could seek to lift it if he applied to practise. Not practising is the condition on which the case stays parked. He is a non-practising solicitor.

The descriptor. Mr Haigh is clearly attached to the description "human rights lawyer" and cites a number of outlets using it. But those pieces are covering his campaigning, and the phrase is shorthand for what he does rather than a statement about his qualifications; several are reporting what he told them, and one is a headline. The term carries no professional meaning in England and Wales. What the sources record is a career at commercial firms - Palmer Cowen, Thomas Eggar, DLA Piper, Akin Gump - then an in-house role at GFH, and campaigning work after 2016. He may fairly be described as a campaigner on human rights, or as a non-practising solicitor who advises on these matters. "Human rights lawyer" is not the right term, particularly when is proposed for the first sentence of the lead.

To be clear about what I'm asking for: the 6 July version should be restored as the base text, with the 2025 dismissals added and any other well-sourced additions made to it. I'm involved, so I won't do that myself for the moment (though having the subject being able to revert changes he doesn't approve of doesn't seem like a sound way of doing things!), and I'd be grateful if an uninvolved editor would take a look. Leodensians (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

A reply on the substance, and then I will step back and leave this to uninvolved editors.

Since the 6 July rewrite is being proposed as the base text, its accuracy matters. That rewrite: removed my degree from the infobox although it is sourced to The Times of 24 June 2026; removed sourced charity and advocacy material cited to PinkNews, Gay Times and Voice Online as "trivia"; inserted the qualifier "self-described" although no reliable source uses it and Haaretz, the BBC and others use the description in their own voice; recited the particulars of untested allegations that WP:BLP says must be treated conservatively; and presented a litigation chronology that ends in 2021, omitting the High Court's ruling of 11 November 2022, the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the appeal on 5 February 2024 and the dismissal of every claim on 21 March 2025, all publicly reported. A text with those omissions and insertions is not a neutral starting point, and restoring it would re-publish each of those defects in a biography of a living person.

On the SDT: the Tribunal stayed those proceedings indefinitely in 2023 on medical grounds, after considering medical evidence. I have not claimed the allegations were determined in my favour; I have said only what the register says, and that WP:BLP requires untested allegations not be recited as established fact. The inference above that my practising status exists to keep a case parked is speculation about a living person's motives, and I would ask that it not be repeated.

On the descriptor: the sources using "human rights lawyer" or "lawyer" in their own editorial voice include Haaretz, in both the headline and body of its reporting (2 August 2021: "a British human rights lawyer"); the BBC, in its own headline of 4 June 2026 ("Ex-wife of Dubai ruler's nephew missing, says lawyer"); Cornwall Live ("Cornwall lawyer David Haigh", 3 August 2021); the Daily Record, in its own headline ("Lawyer tortured in Dubai", 14 October 2018); and the Law Society Gazette ("Solicitor"). Headlines and body copy are written by newsrooms, not by their subjects; these are editorial descriptions that survived those outlets' own checks. The suggestion that a career through commercial firms is inconsistent with human rights work is the editor's own analysis rather than anything a source says, and its premise is wrong in any event: major firms including DLA Piper maintain dedicated business and human rights practices. Nor does the phrase need statutory meaning: "human rights lawyer" is not a protected title for anyone, yet Wikipedia describes many subjects that way because a lead sentence records what a person is known for on the balance of reliable sources. Regulatory status is a separate fact, and my draft states it with precision, "solicitor (non-practising) of the Senior Courts of England and Wales", cited to the SRA's live register. Describing me as only a campaigner would contradict the sources; describing me as both is exactly what the draft does. I am content for uninvolved editors to weigh those sources and choose the final formulation.

On process: I have no objection to uninvolved editors working from either version as the base text, provided that whatever stands records the 2022 and 2024 rulings and the March 2025 dismissals, attaches no qualifier that no source uses, and treats untested allegations conservatively, as WP:BLP requires. The sandbox draft is offered as a quarry of sourced material for whoever does that work. I will not be commenting further unless a question is put to me directly. Davidhaighuk (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

TL;DR: David Haigh is a former Leeds United managing director convicted of breach of trust in Dubai, found by the DIFC court after a trial to have taken millions of pounds of his employer's money using false invoices, with judgment then entered against him in England to enforce that ruling and his case that the claim was fabricated rejected. This article was poorly sourced and promotional in tone, with Mr Haigh accepting it had been edited on his behalf in the past: it said twice over that he denies everything and was set up, and gave the trial judge's findings a single clause. Nothing on the false invoices, the sums involved, or the finding that Mr Haigh "is a fraudster". Nothing on the English enforcement judgment, the bankruptcy or the SRA proceedings. And the fraud judgment filed under a heading reading "Torture in Dubai". I tidied it up. Mr Haigh deleted the whole rewrite himself and restored that version, on the basis that some material was missing.

Mr Haigh's response wasn't to say what he wanted changed. It was to delete the lot and put back the version he preferred. He has since posted a series of detailed, well-sourced edit requests on this page, which rather demonstrates he could have done exactly that on 17 July.

And I'd accept most of them. The Make-A-Wish and Brazil material should have been moved rather than dropped. The 2022 disability nomination should come back. The 2022 and 2024 rulings and the 2025 consent orders should be in there. None of that is difficult to do to the 6 July version.

What it didn't justify was restoring a text that gives his denial twice, once up in the opening paragraphs, while reducing the DIFC judgment to a single clause. Cooke J did not merely find that funds were "fraudulently directed". He found, after a trial, that Mr Haigh "is a fraudster" who caused monies belonging to GFH to be paid into his own bank accounts and that of a close friend, in sums of £2,039,793.70, AED 8,735,340 and US$50,000, concealed by false invoices. Henshaw J quoted that finding when enforcing the judgment in England, and held Mr Haigh had no real prospect of showing the claim against him was fabricated. The live version contains none of it, nor the refusal of permission to appeal, the bankruptcy, the 2021 repossession or the SRA proceedings. It files the DIFC judgment under a heading reading "Torture in Dubai". That is a WP:DUE and WP:STRUCTURE problem, and it is what is live right now.

One correction: contrary to Mr Haigh's claim, the rewrite didn't remove the sourced advocacy material. Stonewall, #ComeOut2Play, the PinkNews coverage and both National Diversity Awards shortlistings are all still in it. Again, in any event, these are points to raise for consideration, not grounds for the subject to revert his own article unilaterally.

The SDT. The SRA brought proceedings in 2018 alleging misappropriation of £617,000 from a client account. The Tribunal stayed them indefinitely in 2023 on medical grounds, with liberty to apply. Mr Haigh holds no practising certificate and cannot carry out reserved legal activities. The Law Society Gazette records that the regulator could seek to lift the stay if he applied for one. I'm not sure what inference is being objected to; that's just what the source says. It is a bit odd to cite the Gazette as authority for "solicitor" while leaving out that the same report is where the absence of a practising certificate comes from.

"Human rights lawyer". It's worth taking the phrase in two parts to illustrate why the term isn't appropriate here.

"Lawyer", in England and Wales, is ordinary shorthand for solicitor or barrister. It isn't a protected title, so anyone may use it, which is exactly why it tells a reader nothing on its own. What is verifiable is the regulated position: Mr Haigh is a solicitor who holds no practising certificate. He cannot conduct litigation, cannot appear in court, cannot carry out any reserved legal activity, and cannot hold himself out as practising. On this, the sources that deal in the distinction are the regulator and the legal press. The SRA register records the position, and the Law Society Gazette, the only specialist legal publication in Mr Haigh's own list, calls him a solicitor whilst recording that he holds no practising certificate. The general-interest outlets he cites are reaching for shorthand; several are repeating what he told them, and two are headlines.

"Human rights" describes what he campaigns on, and nobody disputes that he does. But no source describes his legal practice as human rights work. What the sources record before 2014 is Palmer Cowen, Thomas Eggar, DLA Piper, Akin Gump, then an in-house role at GFH Capital. Every source using the phrase post-dates 2016 and is describing campaigning, not practice. Mr Haigh notes that large firms maintain business and human rights practices, which is true, but nothing cited shows he worked in one. The comparator he offers, Lisa Bloom, makes the point: she is an admitted attorney in active practice, and her lead describes what she is licensed to do.

Put the two halves together and the accurate description is a non-practising solicitor who campaigns on human rights in the UAE. That is what the regulator says, what the legal press says, and what the campaigning coverage actually describes. It is also more informative than the shorthand, which is what MOS:FIRSTBIO asks of a first sentence.

Fundamentally this is what WP:COI is there to prevent. Someone with a conflict shouldn't be picking which version of an article stands. If they don't like a change, the answer is to say so on the talk page, not to act on the article. WP:OWN says nobody owns a page, subject included. Instead the subject deleted an uninvolved editor's rewrite, put his own preferred text back (which had all sorts of issues, and which he accepts was edited on his behalf), and we've been debating what to add to his version ever since.

So: could an uninvolved editor restore the 6 July version as the base? I can't add the 2022, 2024 and 2025 material myself as I haven't been able to read the sources, and it's better done by someone who has. But that's no reason for the current version to stand meanwhile, and if nobody's taken it up within the week I'll restore it and leave those additions to whoever can source them. Leodensians (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The page was recently protected after a series of TAs kept removing the sourced birthdate, legal name and other aliases, claiming the source cited isn’t reliable and got all that wrong.

I really don’t have the level of familiarity with sources in this subject area (hip hop) to assess this complaint. Nor do Ihave the time as I’m at Wikimania at Could someone who does take a look? Daniel Case (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Searching online for Devon Turner and “Punchmade” brings up a video from @brainjuiceofficial, a YouTube channel that focuses on social media celebrities. @Brainjuiceofficial says Turner was born in October 2000, the oldest child of a single mother of five whose husband was not in the picture.[2]

I'm sure Krebs on Security is a WP:EXPERTSPS in the field of security, but we shouldn't have a self-published blog parroting a gossip Youtuber as a source for biographical details, especially if they have been repeatedly challenged. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am Lee Moak, the subject of the article, and I have a disclosed conflict of interest. I am requesting review by uninvolved editors of the following sentence in the “Air Line Pilots Association” section: “Moak was expelled from ALPA in 2023 for an Article VIII violation for ‘services performed for an outside entity ... acting contrary to the interests of the Union and its members’.” The sentence is cited only to an ALPA FastRead publication concerning ALPA’s own internal disciplinary proceeding. ALPA was a party to the matter, and I am not aware of independent reliable secondary coverage establishing the claim, its context, or its encyclopedic significance. I previously submitted a COI edit request on the article talk page. The responding editor placed part of ALPA’s language in quotation marks to address WP, but did not address whether this contentious negative material should be included under WP, WP, WP, WP and WP. I respectfully request uninvolved review of these questions: Is ALPA’s own publication sufficient sourcing for contentious negative material about a living person when ALPA was directly involved in the dispute? In the absence of significant independent secondary coverage, does this internal union proceeding have sufficient encyclopedic weight for inclusion? If retained, should the entire claim be explicitly attributed to ALPA rather than merely placing selected language in quotation marks? Should the statement be moved out of the section describing my 2011–2014 ALPA presidency, since the matter occurred in 2023? My preferred resolution is removal unless reliable independent secondary sources establish both the claim and its encyclopedic significance. I will not edit the article directly and will accept the determination of uninvolved editors. Article: Lee Moak Prior discussion: Talk Moak#BLP edit request: ALPA expulsion sentence Thank you. SafeAviation (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've removed it for now, erring on the side of WP:BLP. If other editors have reliable secondary sources, I would not be opposed to it being added back provided that both ALPA's side and Moak's side (yours) are dispassionately represented. BBQboffin^{grill me} 03:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I am requesting review by uninvolved editors of a wording issue in the biography of living person Mark Pfeifle.

I have a disclosed conflict of interest and have already posted a COI edit request on the article talk page. The request has not yet received editor review. I am not making the edit directly.

The current article says:

“In 2016, Pfeifle guided law enforcement communications strategy to discredit water protectors in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. He would later advise law enforcement at Thacker Pass lithium mine.”

This wording raises BLP and neutrality concerns because it presents a contested characterization in Wikipedia’s voice and overstates the Thacker Pass sourcing.

The requested replacement is:

“In 2016, Pfeifle and his firm, Off the Record Strategies, advised the National Sheriffs’ Association and law enforcement officials on communications during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, including talking points, media outreach, and communications training.^[1] DeSmog characterized the communications effort as an attempt to discredit Dakota Access Pipeline protesters.^[2] Pfeifle later wrote in a Fargo Forum column that he worked with the National Sheriffs’ Association on strategy, media relations, and protecting law enforcement from doxing and disinformation during the protests.^[3] In 2021, Pfeifle met with the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office in Nevada to discuss lessons learned from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests as officials prepared for possible demonstrations at the proposed Thacker Pass lithium mine; ProPublica reported that the department did not appear to have hired him.^[4]”

The request does not seek to remove the DeSmog criticism. It asks that the criticism be attributed to DeSmog rather than stated as fact in Wikipedia’s voice. It also asks that the Thacker Pass wording reflect ProPublica’s full reporting: that Pfeifle met with Humboldt County officials, but that the department did not appear to have hired him.

The existing COI edit request is here: Talk Pfeifle

I would appreciate review by an uninvolved editor as a BLP/neutrality matter. Thank you. Wereotr (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The existing edit request is actually here. I will note that the above request includes a false name for the ProPublica article linked; Google finds no article named "The Newest Threat to the Thacker Pass Lithium Mine May Be the Best Yet", and the archive of that page shows that it has always had the title "Under the Microscope": Activists Opposing a Nevada Lithium Mine Were Surveilled for Years, Records Show. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, while I cannot speak to Desmog as a source, the ProPublica source (which per WP:PROPUBLICA is a top-notch source) also refers to the effort on the Standing Rock/DAN protesters with the "discredit" term. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You used the COI edit request template, but that is not a disclosure, please see WP:COI for how to disclose, or just write out a statement on your user page(User:Wereotr). Your request is open and pending, it's unnecessary to come here until and unless the concerns are not resolved. The request is actually at Talk:Mark Pfeifle. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the corrections. I have updated my understanding of the ProPublica title and the correct talk-page link: Talk:Mark Pfeifle. I will also add a clear COI disclosure on my user page.

To clarify, I am not asking editors to ignore or remove the “discredit” characterization. I am asking whether the article can better distinguish the underlying factual role from source characterization, and whether the Thacker Pass sentence can be revised to reflect ProPublica’s full reporting, including that Humboldt County officials met with Pfeifle but the department did not appear to have hired him.

I will continue the request on the article talk page unless editors here believe there is a BLP issue requiring noticeboard review. Thank you. Wereotr (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

What's the general nature of your connection? 331dot (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

A TA is very intent on finding a formulation to fit "felon" or "felony" into the article on judge Hannah Dugan, who resigned after conviction of obstructing federal agents. This article has seen a good bit of this sort of thing, and in this case the TA has been trying to find a circumlocution that in their view skirts WP:FELON by a sufficient margin, but still works in the felon tag. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dear administrator,

This is an urgent request.

A person that I don't know his or her real name, User:Earl Andrew, has edited here and added the information on my residence place in 2025. I do not want that my personal information be published on Wikipedia. Could you please remove this information and delete it from the history of the entry?

Thank you for your comprehension.

Taraneh Javanbakht~2026-41407-67 (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I should note that I have updated the primary source in the link with a secondary source, if that makes a difference. Anyway, I directed her here so that others can weigh in as to whether or not this is a valid request, as I am not sure. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have asked by email the journalist who has published this information in the secondary source to remove it. He will come back from vacation on Monday 17 August 2026. I am asking here to remove it from the history of this entry on Wikipedia. Taraneh Javanbakht~2026-41407-67 (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whether a city of residence is specific enough to be considered personal information, but that doesn't really matter because the policy on people who are relatively unknown encourages restraint for content that isn't directly relevant to notability. It should probably be excluded. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this is a reasonable request. Publicizing personal info about obscure figures gets close to doxing, and we don't know her circumstances or why the publication of this info might be harmful to her. This information isn't particularly useful to anyone so we lose little by omitting. At this point, the information has already been removed from the article, but it would require an admin to delete it from the article history. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 03:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Wikipedia should even allow BLPs on "obscure figures". But that's a discussion for another time, I guess. Some1 (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Obscure is relative on a global encyclopedia, but if someone is truly obscure, where they don't meet WP:BIO, their article should be proposed for deletion. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I will note that this specific article is not eligible for the "proposed deletion" (WP:PROD) process, as it has been through AfD process (three times, with the two most recent ones getting "delete" consensus.) But proposing it for deletion (and salting?) via the AfD process may well be due. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I revision-deleted the information from article history. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure if this is the right place to go to as this is a cross wiki problem but somehow this image [3] has come to represent this politician, including on Wikidata [4] so it is automatically embedded on other pages. The photo of the model in 2017 never claims to be Hamed, who would be 39 then, and who visibly is not the same person [5]. I know there's WP:AGF but I can't see any other explanation than someone just found an image of a woman in a hijab and thought it would be a laugh. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think that's relevant. If we're mentioning the fact that she made the donation that is being investigated by the police, we can hardly not name her, unless you want to say something like "...George Cottrell reportedly transferred £2m to his mother who then donated it..." which would be a bit ... odd, wouldn't it? And it's not just the Guardian either, it's covered everywhere and even the Telegraph names her in its subheader when covering the police investigation [6]. Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Also, under her maiden name, her dating King Charles and her modeling career (which affected the relationship) received coverage. [7] so I actually don't think LOWPROFILE applies here. Nor, anymore, BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

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

It better fits low profile:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Opposition to committee roll call amendment"

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

"Memorial Drive closure controversy"

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

"Berman Tabacco"

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

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

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

Courtesy link: Marjorie Decker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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