Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
Shortcuts WP:BLPN WP:BLP/N WP:BLPNB WP:BLP/NB This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

@ 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

An IP has added content which violates BLP guidelines, specifically unsourced allegations of sexual abuse [1]. 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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Trumpetrep, this edit you made [2] 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 [3] [4] 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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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) reply

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

/info/en/?search=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) reply

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) reply

@ 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) reply

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) reply

@ 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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

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) reply

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) reply

Per [5], am I reasonably right, or is "former" actress ok? Subject has opinion: [6]

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) reply

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

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) reply

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

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

I'm guessing that OP is referring to recent Fox News [7] and New York Post [8] 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) reply

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) reply

Honestly, I do see some potential in cutting down the career section a little, to mostly what is present in secondary (and, implicitly, third-party) sources. Adding more primary sourced junk and opinion pieces is the exact opposite of appropriate though, and the frenzy surrounding it makes me disinclined to approach with the proverbial pole of significant length. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 06:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I believe just over 3 meters is traditional. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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 : /info/en/?search=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) reply

Read 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) reply

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) reply

Here's a reference which, while not great, may move the notability needle just a little bit. Oh here's another one, slightly better but still saddled with being local coverage. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is struggling with problems regarding sourced information about members with the names "Jessie Wagner" and "Tabitha King" joining and leaving, replacing member Helen Scott (who had COVID-19), and to prove that information, I began using henleystandard.co.uk and Instagram as sources. I am upset with User:SoulJapan's persistent removal of content and changing the name of Freddi Poole (even though her name is also spelled Freddie Pool). This has been going on for months and I have kept an eye on the page ever since 2023 because people continued to remove content, and it was semi-protected in December after I requested protection due to disruptive editing by IPs and persistent content removal. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

An Instagram account belonging to one member should not be cited to provide updates about other members of the group per WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Per WP:INSTAGRAM it is okay to use it as a source sometimes to prove information, however it does not include events or any of that. It was an announcement to prove the statement I made, I did not make updates. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk) 23:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Only if the information is unambiguous and specifically about the owner of the instagram account. ie: "My birthday is today, April 24th." could possibly be used to support a subject's birthday, but a friend wishing him happy birthday could not. We can only use it to prove certain types of information that is specifically about the owner of the account. Zaereth ( talk) 23:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey! Hope this is the right spot ... Seeking to make simple reference to a publicly-available document, signed by Oscar Isaac, in the profile of Oscar Isaac. No socks here ... but getting bulldozed + threatened by an 'editor'.

Here's the 1-liner, available from any corner of the internet - it makes no accusation or claim for any side, only stating what is publicly known - he signed a letter, for a desired outcome, on a particular subject, due to specific events :

  In October 2023, Isaac signed an open letter for the "
Artists4Ceasefire" campaign alongside other artists, urging President 
Joe Biden to push for a ceasefire and an end to the killing of civilians amid the 
2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip
[1]

NB: The references - aside from the letter, which is NPR - to 'Artist4Ceasefire', 'Joe Biden', and the '2023 invasion of the Gaza Strip' all link within WIKI itself on their own / are held by WIKI.

Was immediately threatened by an editor claiming ownership of the profile (by tone + outright threat to permaban me), who said the sentence above is "contentious", that Wiki's "an encyclopedia, not FB or a news site".

It's a public document that was purposefully sent to the White House/President. Yet this editor immediately threatened me with a permanent block just for *this single citation* - and I'm brand new, so there's no possiblity of "past differences".

Aggressive threatening of noobs aside, the challenge with their claim, is that tens of thousands of other WIKI profiles have the same/similar poli-social content with no hinderance ... permitting only what specific editor may prefer in a given page, on a platform that supposed to be "open, factual", an "encyclopedia of knowledge", is well, troublesome.

If it's not permitted to plainly reference actions they've chosen to publicly support - and do so with no ill inent/malice - then all public figures would need to have their profiles reduced to Name, DOB, Work history only:

 Michael Moore's profile must be emptied, and Mark Ruffalo, Michael Stipe, Bassem Youssef, Jon Stewart, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela, Jon Oliver, George Galloway, Amy Schumer, Angelina Jolie, Michael Rapaport, Cate Blanchett, Ben Affleck, Chelsea Handler, Bradley Cooper, Bob Odenkirk, Bret Gelman, Debra Messing, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sharon Osbourne, Chris Pine, Jerry Seinfeld, Sinead O'Connor ... and so on, and so on. 

Countless other WIKIs, artist/non-artist alike, reference social & policital efforts ... if a public person (Hollywood A/B lister, no less) has of their own accord chosen to put their name publicly on X document, it should not be prohibited from mere mention, since it's already on record with the rest of the world. Hiding it from Wiki could imply preferential treatment one way or another, no?

Sorry for the ramble I'm still getting used to this space, and am very confused by a person gatekeeping a stranger's own previously published actions being cited with zero harmful content & zero intent to harm.

Thanks for your patience!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseofcourse ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply