Issue Overview: The "Lifestyle" section of Pastor Ed Young's Wikipedia article primarily relies on an investigative report from WFAA, which is secondarily supported by a Dallas News article. The latter mainly references the former, raising concerns about the independence and verification of the information presented.^[1]

Concerns: Source Reliability and Independence: The primary source, WFAA, relies on anonymous sources and lacks substantial corroborative evidence. The Dallas News article does not independently verify the claims but simply references the WFAA report, raising questions about its independence and the verification of its content.^[2][3] 5dondons (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The source from Dallas News is an op/ed column which I wouldn't call a reliable source. It's written in a narrative style, which in itself makes it suspect. Same reason we don't use Forensic Files or Ken Burns documentaries as sources, but if you look closely you can see the author injecting their own opinions. The News 8 (WFAA-TV) source is a well-written news article, and I see no reason it shouldn't be used. Of course, there's a matter of due weight and balance to consider, but I see no reason the source can't be used. Zaereth (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I agree the Dallas News article's narrative style and op/ed nature make it less suitable as a reliable source for factual content in addition to using the WFAA as its source for the contentious material, particularly in a biography of a living person.

Regarding the WFAA article, while it is well-written, I agree we must consider the due weight and balance. The reliance of a single source for potentially contentious material in a BLOP is problematic.

Given these points, we should continue to seek additional independent verification. If we are unable to find additional support for these claims, we may need to reevaluate its inclusion. 5dondons (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hipal doesn't agree its an op/ed however I do, and listed the reasons it is in a reply to him. To address his concern about it being used as a source for other pieces of the article, i have since found new sources for those pieces. I will give more time for other seasoned editors to weigh in however with only 1 source being used for contentious material I don't find grounds for due weight and I believe it should be removed entirely. 5dondons (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The initial source is legit, the second source is not an op/ed but a lifestyle piece, but all it does is confirm that those things were said. As the sentence stand, it's not even an accurate reflection of the source material, as neither source claims that the jet was purchased by the subject or his church; one source says "operated by", the other says it was leased

We do have enough to say that he was criticized for living a lavish or expensive lifestyle, and the second source citing the first shows that that criticism was seen as significant, but the details are a problem. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

While the clarification on the nature of the sources is helpful, it underscores a fundamental issue: the existing sources do not robustly support the claims made in the "Lifestyle" section of the article. The distinction between "operated by," "leased," and "purchased" significantly affects the factual accuracy of the claims related to Ed Young's lifestyle.

Furthermore, the narrative style of the Dallas News piece and its reliance on the WFAA report, which itself uses anonymous sources, raises concerns about the overall reliability and independence required for such content in BLOP to ensure it does not perpetuate potentially misleading or unsupported claims. 5dondons (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Can a source be counted as 'reliable' if it does not add any additional information on the topic but solely quotes another source? All the Dallas News source does is verify that the WFAA article was written. 5dondons (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. it is reliable for the fact that the WFAA makes its claims, and an indicator that the WFAA coverage is of interest. Per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the linked references are used in the article. Why they being brought up rather than the ones in use?

I cannot access either of them. --Hipal (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, these are the articles I was referring to, they are the ones sourced on the page:

WFAA - https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/prominent-grapevine-pastor-linked-to-luxury/287-338287756

Dallas News: http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_December/pastored/ 5dondons (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like user Zaereth clicked the links within the actual article and was able to access them from there. His points should still carry weight. 5dondons (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Very concerning that you identified different references than those used in the article.

I'm not clear what Zaereth is referring to. The correct Dallas News ref doesn't appear to be an op/ed. It's a lengthy piece already used in the article elsewhere, it has a great deal of background and comparisons (hallmarks of a well-researched news piece), multiple photos of the Young family, a tour of their home, and quotes from the family members. The presentation can sometimes take or formal or entertainment style. --Hipal (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Zaereth read the article from the source on the main page. You still haven’t addressed the fact that the Dallas News articles source for the information included in ‘Lifestyle’ section comes directly from the WFAA source without adding any additional sources. 5dondons (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Just read the Dallas News article again and its definitely an op/ed. It uses a subjective tone, includes the author's opinions, and focuses on broader commentary about Ed Young's ministry practices. It opens with a personal anecdote and provides subjective analyses, such as saying Young "knows how to titillate and provoke." These elements, along with a lack of immediate newsworthiness, mark the piece as an op/ed rather than an objective news report. 5dondons (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that makes it a magazine-style article, which is an acceptable source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zaereth:, could you respond to the arguments that the Dallas News reference that was actually being used in the article is not an op/ed? --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There have been past attempts to WP:WHITEWASH Dominic Ng, including by paid editors who were subsequently discovered, and it would be good to get more eyes on this to see if there is presently an attempt to whitewash it. - Amigao (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There is also an attempt to censor the Cantonese-language name from a very prominent figure in the Chinese-American community, which seems bizarre for a BLP. Anyone encountered this sort of thing before? - Amigao (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You need to gain consensus for disputed edits for inclusion per WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support including the name in the article. However from my experience it's hardly uncommon that editors insist such inclusions are generally unnecessary on the English wikipedia, for people who live in an English speaking country or even feel that their are "othering" the person. In this case it's complicated by the fact he doesn't seem to use his Chinese give name in English but does I assume use it in Chinese. But still seems a fair chance this remains an issue of editors disagreeing on whether the English wikipedia needs such details. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I’d like to ask for some comments on a contentious matter relating to the article for Simon Williams (chess player).

The subject of the article is a minor chess grandmaster (currently rated 1,303rd in the world), and also a youtube streamer and chess author. He is relatively well-known in chess circles, but is by no means a public figure under the Wikipedia definition of that term.

In the recent past Williams was mentioned in a determination by the UK pensions regulator re: some events that occurred while he was the trustee of a pension scheme. This has received a limited amount of press coverage, which has prompted some discussion on the talk page for Wiliams re: whether or not the matter should be mentioned in the main article.

(It’s not really relevant to the underlying issue here, but some of the edit summaries / talk page comments in relation to this matter miscategorise the events in question as ‘fraud’. The pensions regulator’s involvement was actually solely in relation to the way in which the scheme was administrated and did not relate to fraud.)

In trying to resolve whether or not some reference to these events should be included in the main article I checked the guidelines on biographies of living persons. To the best of my understanding, the relevant section would appear to be under WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE:

"Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability".

In the case in point I’m interpreting that as meaning that for a minor chess grandmaster we only include ‘material relevant to their chess career'. On that basis it seems (to me at least) that the matter described above should not be in the article, even if it has had limited coverage in broadsheet newspapers.

I have no connection to the subject, just giving my interpretation of the relevant guidelines. Am I correct? Any assistance gratefully received. Axad12 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Bilorv's version of the material (diff) seems fine. I think given the in-depth coverage in Financial Times and The Times, it should be okay to include. WP:BLPCRIME may advise us to err against including this kind of information for people who aren't public figures, but I don't see that as being intended for someone who's getting this kind of coverage, and additionally William's career as a streamer/commentator/selling chess courses kind of relies on him being a public figure to an extent, at least in the chess world. Perhaps less importantly, it seems like there isn't actually an accusation of criminal wrongdoing here, so there may be less of a BLPCRIME concern. I think as long as the article is based on the FT and Times articles and not the primary source Ombudsman report, it's fine. Endwise (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts here. You've put your finger on what seems to be the key point, which is...

Does being relatively well known in a pretty obscure subculture make someone a public figure (and no longer subject to WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE)?

I'd imagine that in the UK fewer that 0.1% of people are even vaguely aware of Williams' chess-related activities (and even fewer elsewhere), so I'm struggling to see how he constitutes a public figure by any normal definition of that term.

If somebody could clear this up for the sake of my understanding it would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Williams is certainly a "public figure" in the sense of Wikipedia jargon. He has sought attention through his role in the ECF, courses, books, commentary etc. He promotes himself through the name "GingerGM". This doesn't mean he is "famous": he doesn't have to be someone that 0.1% of Brits are aware of because that's not related to the criteria. A lot of people misunderstand what "public figure" (or synonymously, "high-profile") means in Wikipedia jargon. It doesn't even require a figure to be notable: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.

The text I wrote wasn't intended to accuse Williams of criminal wrongdoing and describes factual events with quotes on his behalf. I think it's quite a generous framing, backed up with substantial coverage to show this is encyclopedic content. Apologies for not realising there was related discussion on the talk page and thanks for bringing this to BLPN. — Bilorv (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I take your point re: seeking out media attention, but my assumption is that the quote you give is intended to refer to media attention with rather greater exposure than low circulation industry/hobby publications.

Simon Williams' chess-related activity has never been covered in any form of media beyond chess magazines and chess websites and, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't sought to promote himself outside of that very small pond.

There are a huge number of individuals who maintain some form of youtube presence to assist with sales of books, DVDs, etc. on niche subjects (chess openings in Williams' case), but I'm far from convinced that that constitutes 'seeking out media attention'. Axad12 (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

To give a comparable example, if an individual had a youtube channel about fishing and used it to leverage sales of their own brand of fishing bait, I don't think there would be any suggestion that they were seeking out media attention. Axad12 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Endwise. It's a little unfortunate it's a separate section, but it doesn't really fit in an existing section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that I’m very much in the minority here, and also less experienced than the other users to have commented. However, I’d really be grateful for some clarification of how Williams’ rather small-time activity to promote his books etc solely within chess circles constitutes ‘seeking media attention’.

If it doesn’t constitute seeking media attention then it still seems to me that WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE applies and the pensions material doesn’t belong in the article.

By comparison, if the 1,303rd ranked golfer in the world was censured by an ombudsman for his performance while doing a part-time job, I hardly imagine the matter would even be up for discussion. Axad12 (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

He's seeking media attention, yes, within the context of the sport he participates in. I don't like the jargon "public figure" and "low-profile" but that's what we use and the examples given at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual of low-profile individuals are people who are unwittingly or unknowingly wrapped up in something, or only speaking on behalf of an organisation. He's not reached his position (of being somewhat well-known among the English-speaking chess world) unwittingly. Williams has successfully created a persona and brand, within the world of chess, with the name "GingerGM"—presumably because only the very top players in the world can make a living from chess competitions but many more strong players can make a living from coaching, courses, commentary etc. — Bilorv (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

(A bit late, but) I have no idea who the 1303rd ranked golfer in the world is, but they likely have a lower profile than Simon Williams, for a similar reason that the 1302nd ranked chess player also likely has a lower profile than Simon Williams. Endwise (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The section was balanced, factual, and supported by high-quality sources. It should be restored. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but none of that is relevant if WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE applies... Axad12 (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

“It could be harmful to my reputation to have my misdeeds, which are much better sourced than any other part of my biography, described neutrally and accurately” is a good reason for marginally notable people not to create Wikipedia pages about themselves (and feel free to send this article to AfD), but it is not a general shield that prevents the inclusion of neutral and accurate information that happens to reflect negatively on article subjects. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that I am Simon Williams then I'm afraid that you are (a) wrong, and (b) making a serious allegation of COI which is frankly ridiculous. However, well done for having the courage to make the allegation while hiding behind an IP address. Axad12 (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As you did not create this article I can't see how you can possibly interpret the IP's comments as suggesting that you are Simon Williams. Back to the matter at hand, without taking any view as to what if anything should be said on the pensions thing, it seems to me that Williams clearly is not a low-profile individual as that term is defined by Wikipedia at WP:LPI, and therefore, WP:NPF does not apply to him. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I was working on the basis of the comment 'a good reason for marginally notable people not to create Wikipedia pages about themselves (and feel free to send this article to AfD)' - which implies that I have some kind of COI here and might wish to take the extreme course of trying to get the article deleted.

Also on the basis that a different IP user has previously accused me (on the article talk page) of pursuing this issue in bad faith and of being a sockpuppet.

However, I have no particular views on Simon Williams either pro or con. I've only ever been attempting to get clarification on the correct application of the relevant policy.

I'm very grateful for your comment above (and also for the recent comment by Bilorv) in clarifying that my understanding of the relevant policy was faulty. I will now take the issue back to the article talk page to discuss the best form of words for the issue to be included in the article. Axad12 (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea if the article creator is the subject but it's very common for article subjects and others with a CoI to create articles at a time when the promotional coverage is considered useful and then later it becomes a problem for them when something on them blows up. We non-CoI editors need to deal with it as we can when we become aware there are issues, which can including sending the article to AfD if the subject doesn't seem notable. Assuming there is reason to think it may have been the subject who created the article, it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge these 2 common trends. Even if the original CoI editor is still around, we don't want them making more problems by sending the article to AfD. That should be decided by non-CoI editors only. So if the IP was suggesting you had a CoI but should send the article to AfD frankly they should be ignored. But I see nothing in their comment to suggest they intended to suggest that you seem to be connecting those two related but distinct points in a manner that wasn't intended. (Per WP:BLPREQDEL the subject's opinion may be relevant, but it should still be non CoI editors deciding whether it's even worth discussing.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

My purpose in bringing the issue here was to get guidance on the correct interpretation of the relevant policy. The IP comment that you are referring to was clearly inferring that the subject created the article (the basis for which suggestion seems entirely unclear), and/or that I might wish to refer the article to AfD if I had a COI and found the contents of the article inconvenient in some way.

Since the discussion up to that point had related solely to a policy question I hardly see why the IP user thought it necessary to make any suggestion of possible COI in relation to this article.

I've removed the pension-related issue from the article on, I think, 3 different occasions over recent months - but surely the discussion on the article talk page and my decision to bring it here to get a consensus decision demonstrates that I've been acting in good faith. So, again, why was there any need for the IP edit to bring COI into the discussion at all? And since I was the only user in favour of removing the material, who could he have been referring to except for me? Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

My purpose in bringing the issue here was to get guidance on the correct interpretation of the relevant policy. Which you have received; and now because you don't like the answer you are engaging in extremely heavy deflection. --100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) I retract this part of my statement, as it seems the edit has been reinstated and you have stated you don't object to that. I'm sorry you are so worked up about things I didn't say, that wouldn't make sense if I had said them; since the substantive question is settled in what I consider the appropriate way, I don't have anything else to add to this discussion. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I couldn't be less invested in the outcome, hence my genuine thanks above to Bilorv and Caeciliusinhorto, which I'm happy to repeat. I'm very glad indeed to see that there is consensus and resolution - which is what I came here for.

Your introduction of COI into the discussion, on the other hand, was entirely uncalled for (as was your misguided ad hominem comment directly above). Axad12 (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Of possible interest to BLPN watchers: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wardrobe malfunction (2nd nomination). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about repeated addition of content that looks WP:UNDUE. Subject has an arrest record without convictions. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I've trimmed the unsourced/poorly sourced information, and will try to keep an eye on it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Despite receiving attention on and off Wikipedia before and during COP28, there has been no update on Sultan Al Jaber to communicate the results of this event.

I would like to disclose my Conflict of Interest in regards to this article and request some changes to address missing information. I have proposed language on the Talk page for consideration, for which I would gratefully appreciate the review of people familiar with BLP policies to ensure the tone is totally neutral. Many thanks! Dedemocha (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is now live in the COI request queue but would definitely benefit from oversight by editors more familiar with editing BLPs. Dedemocha (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

An IP has added content which violates BLP guidelines, specifically unsourced allegations of sexual abuse . I've reverted, but it probably needs to be scrubbed from the history. Similar allegations about this person go back a long way, but reliable sources are rarely, if ever, added. It's a difficult case for various reasons, but I thought I'd bring it here for admin attention. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: Fixed it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliJarmel (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I work with Andrew Schneider and can confirm that the photo featured in [| this page] is not him.

The man in this photo is the Andrew Schneider that the above page is referring to.

The erroneous photo is the first image that appears when "Andrew Schneider showrunner" is searched, which has caused confusion at times.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliJarmel (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

vandalism to article and unsubstantiated allegations repeatedly inserted as if factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womenwiki2050 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This user's only contributions to Wikipedia are on Liang Wang's article. There seems to be a conflict of interest. Womenwiki2050 keeps removing allegations which are now part of an ongoing story with responses by Wang's colleagues. The allegations are sadly germane to the article.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Trumpetrep, this edit you made does not satisfy WP:BLPCRIME. Kizer said that Wang handed her a drink that she later suspected was drugged. Neither the Vulture nor the NY Times references states that he allegedly drugged her when there's another person that could have done it during the night. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The disputed article is Liang Wang (oboist). However, it would be helpful to provide dif links to the disputed edits. In reviewing the misconduct allegations section, it's not clear if Wang should be considered a WP:PUBLICFIGURE v. WP:NPF Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

thank you for clarifying. the language is much more accurate. Womenwiki2050 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

good point. may be NPF. Womenwiki2050 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

At no point did Emil "attack" Starfield's players. He posted claritifications about game development after being the subject of intensive harassment and hate online - harassment which took place shortly after his sister's death. The wording on the following sentence is highly misrepresentative of what he said:

"After the game's mixed reception after launch and further souring in reviews post launch, Pagliarulo attacked the game's players, stating they where "Disconnected from the Realities of Game Developing."

He also didn't "attack" negative reviews. The source provided in the article itself makes that clear.

″Specifically, Pagliarulo attacked negative reviews asking for features common in more modern RPGs that were noticeably absent from Starfield.″

The source used in the article itself makes it clear that Emil isn't wrong about the process being hard, and that he perhaps stirred up the pot unnecessarily:

"Ultimately, Pagliarulo's not wrong. Even getting a small indie project from concept to launch is a Herculean feat, and as much as the "lazy developers" trope has taken hold in recent years, the reality is that just about everyone involved in making a game is fully committed and working hard to make it happen. It really is, as Pagliarulo said, just about a miracle that a lot of these games ever see the light of day."

https://www.pcgamer.com/starfield-design-director-calls-out-unfair-game-criticism-dont-fool-yourself-into-thinking-you-know-why-it-is-the-way-it-is/

The wording on Emil's article is unnecessarily aggressive, not to mention based on false information, directly feeding hateful discourse around game developers online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.0.171.152 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to raise the following talk page topic for review:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Max_Lugavere#%22Known_for_Fringe_Dietary_Claims%22

To summarize, the statement in the article's infobox that Lugavere is primarily "Known for" specifically his "Fringe Dietary Claims" appears to be unsourced.

I believe we need a reliable source(s) that we can clearly attribute to the specific assertion of being primarily known for "fringe dietary claims" or the contentious statement should be revised/removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalem014 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, all - I've updated this page with more links and citations. Kindly suggest if there's something else that needs to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankalprawal (talk • contribs) 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sankalprawal, I'm sorry but I've reverted your edit to Ravi Ravindra. Your edit added promotional language ("a prolific writer", "publishing numerous books", "numerous writings in academic publications", "well represented in the Theosophical literature"), too many publications (including what appear to be self-published works), links to lectures and interviews (many of which appear to be copyright violations), and also way too many external links.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're here to dispassionately summarize what reliable, secondary, independent sources have written about the subject. That means reputable newspaper and magazine articles, book, and other sources about Ravi Ravindra. Those are the types of citations that the article needs. Woodroar (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The introduction to this article is filled with contentious and potentially libellous material which is very poorly sourced - almost exclusively from The Jewish Chronicle, a paper widely known for aggressive smears against it's political opponents.

Attempts to remove the material, as per the BLP policy, is repeatedly reverted by obviously disingenuous editors.

Please consider protecting this page from further vandalism and smears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peirik1 (talk • contribs)

@Peirik1: The Jewish Chronicle, per WP:Perennial sources, is judged as "generally reliable". The material in question (Maté's reporting on the use of chemical weapons in Syria) is sourced to The Guardian (also considered generally reliable) and Monthly Forecast, a publication of an organization known as Security Council Report, an independent organization that monitors and reports on activities of the United Nations Security Council. The material to which you object may not be pleasant, but it is backed by reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I repeat what I wrote on the talk page: the listing for The Jewish Chronicle on WP:RSP that source specifically says:

There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics.

To therefore suggest that this source is in any way reliable about a far-left blog like The Greyzone, is borderline ridiculous.

Regarding the Guardian source I refer to my other comments on the talk page. Peirik1 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle is used to cite the fact that Maté works for The Grayzone. Your edits don't dispute that fact; you've left that fact in your version of the article. So what's the problem? If your problem is with the characterization of The Grayzone as supportive of Russia, Syria and China, there are multiple sources cited to verify those claims. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The introduction to this article refers to Sunny Hostin as a journalist and I question that considering she never received a journalism degree, she never was a news anchor, or wrote for newspapers or magazines. She's been on TV as a political and social commentator and legal analyst. On her own website she refers to herself specially as being "widely known as a social commentator and has covered many of the major legal, political, and cultural community stories of today".^[1] It's more appropriate to describe her as a social commentator and/or legal analyst than a journalist. I know there are several sources which describe her as a "journalist" but I can't find any sources with evidence of her journalism career. There needs to be a distinction between actual journalists and television personalities. The One I Left (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The relevant discussion can be found here. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems entirely reasonable to call her a journalist given that a wide range of RSes do. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm questioning whether we should rephrase to "legal journalist" per my reasoning on her talk pageThe One I Left (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We have editors continually restoring assertions in the infobox that the motive of this was "Islamic extremism", implying the suspect has committed a crime, despite the fact that no conviction has been made. They base this on a video produced by a witness claiming the attacker spoke Arabic. The police investigating the incident have said they believe it is religious extremism but have declined to state the religion. There have not been any charges made yet, let alone a conviction. Can we have more eyes there please. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

DeFacto Ran across this on the way out of the door, but just wanted to suggest being mindful of 3RR since you are at 4 reverts so far of the info. I'm not saying you are right or wrong about the removal and am just making an observation.

Awshort (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Per , am I reasonably right, or is "former" actress ok? Subject has opinion:

A non-working actor who is available for casting is still an actor, just as a writer whose latest book has failed to find a publisher is still a writer. She will be "former" only if she indicates in some way that she is no longer seeking roles.... and taking some other job does not count as an indication, for out here in the Los Angeles area, many a job is filled by those with screen credits past and upcoming. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have now requested to have the page semi-protected. While most of the good edits of late have been from IPs, so have the bad ones, and with the article running it risks becoming a madhouse anyway. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Should the recent controversy regarding the creator be mentioned in any way? Trade (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Is the controversy related to the web series or just the creator? Some links about this controversy would be helpful. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Link --Trade (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. If there is only coverage by gossip or clickbait style sources, this controversy should not be on wikipedia at all. However, if there are RS about it, this controversy should only be mentioned if it impacts the show (like if advertisers withdraw). Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is the recent revelation of her using Wikipedia to benefit her own narrative not being disclosed on her Wikipedia page? There are multiple sources across the internet, as well as video interviews where she admits to censoring facts she doesn't like.

Even the original creator has spoken about the blatant misinformation and how Wikipedia can no longer be a trusted source of factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:2978:14CD:C09D:B454:97E0:5873 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You mean like this unsourced, propagandastic crap or this unsourced, propagandastic crap or this unsourced, propagandastic crap? You're defending blatant WP:BLP violations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing that OP is referring to recent Fox News and New York Post articles. Obviously, New York Post is not a reliable source per WP:RSP, and Fox is problematic. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Fox is also an unreliable source because this falls into politics/science coverage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

More eyes requested, especially regarding recent edits at criticism and terrorism sections, with WP:COATRACK, WP:OR and WP:BLP issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm reaching out for assistance regarding an ongoing edit war and potential BLP violation on Bryan Freedman. Despite clear resolution on the talk page there's been persistent reverting and re-adding of contentious content.

Here is a specific diff highlighting the issue: BLP violation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianthe (talk • contribs)

I've twice restored the redirect at Walter Rhodes (murderer), following serious unsourced claims by editor User:WalterRhodesJr. A third revert would probably be allowable as a potential WP:BLP violation under WP:3RRNO, but taking it here seemed a better idea. Discussion at the editor's user talk is not currently making progress, and the article can't remain in its present state. The claims made are in direct contradiction to the sourced statement at target Jesse Tafero, which the same editor has also tried a few times to alter against the sources cited, in an apparently straightforward case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikishovel (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this individual of enough notoriety to warrant their own dedicated wiki page? Lostsandwich (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Should have updated this thread: the redirect was restored by another editor, and there's a discussion about whether to keep the redirect at WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Walter Rhodes (murderer). Expanding the redirect into an article is an alternative, but so far it looks like per WP:PERP, there's not yet sufficient coverage or significance for a separate article. Wikishovel (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Please change Nicki Minaj wikipedia profile picture to something more professional. I don’t understand why a screenshot shot from a video was used to be her photo when she has 100s of professional photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C000:C40:D44B:B6D0:163A:DAEC (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Becuse copyright. When it comes to living people and WP, the photographer has to "donate" it, or more formally release it under an acceptable license. Professional photographers want money for their work, and you can't blame them for that. More at WP:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

A draft entry for Carol Leeming is now in my Sandbox. Concerns are invited. I hope to publish this as an entry in Wikipedia later this week.

This is the link to my sandbox : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TrevorGlynLocke/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorGlynLocke (talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Trevor Locke 22nd April 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorGlynLocke (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Rad the comment at the top of the draft, added by Theroadislong 12 days ago. The draft is improperly formatted, cites improper sources, and is in no way ready to be made into an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if she meets WP:N, but see WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)