WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Los Angeles Blade Source Concerns

Hello. I’d like input on the article Nate Morris, a BLP that has recently undergone politically significant edits.

On 28 June 2025, editor Bram880 added a statement that Nate Morris had announced a bid for the U.S. Senate on a podcast with Donald Trump Jr.

On 30 June 2025, the same editor added a follow-up stating that Morris was endorsed by Charlie Kirk of Turning Point Action.

While both additions appear to be cited, they were added without prior Talk page discussion, despite being politically weighty additions to a biography of a living person. This raises concerns under WP:BLP and WP:NPOV regarding balance and weight.

At the same time, I added cited and neutrally worded content that was reverted by Bram880 without edit summary or discussion. Rather than engaging on the article’s Talk page, they followed up with repeated questions about my identity and whether I had a conflict of interest — all of which I have addressed transparently and in good faith.

I’m requesting input from uninvolved editors on whether this editorial pattern, including the selective handling of political material and lack of collaboration, aligns with Wikipedia’s expectations for neutrality and responsible BLP editing.

I’ve intentionally refrained from making any further edits to the article while awaiting engagement on the Talk page, in line with Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process and to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Thanks. KSUThorobreds (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:Someone adding material without previous discussion is not improper, particularly something as of-note as that the subject is running for office. We consider that WP:BOLD, and we encourage it. You were free to revert, although in that particular case if you had a problem, it probably would've been best just to discuss. You yourself added material without prior discussion, and when it was reverted, you started a discussion... which is what we call the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and is common for Wikipedia editing. About the only failure here is that Bram880 has failed to fruitfully engage in discussion on the Talk page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::Noted and thanks. Bram880 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the clarification and guidance. The balance between being bold and being careful is itself a learning experience. I may have been too bold at first, and now I may be erring on the side of being too cautious. I agree that adding cited content falls under WP:BOLD, and it wasn’t my intent to make that the central issue. My concern is about the overall pattern of reversions without edit summaries, limited engagement on the talk page, and follow-up questions about my identity rather than the content. I’ve tried to take appropriate steps by starting a discussion and I look forward to continued feedback. Thanks again. KSUThorobreds (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:The fundraising material you added[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nate_Morris&diff=prev&oldid=1297553495] was not cited to reliable sources per WP:DAILYCALLER and WP:BLPPRIMARY for OpenSecrets and possibly LegiStorm. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, this is helpful. KSUThorobreds (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

{{la|Dorset Police}}

Content in question {{ndash}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dorset_Police&diff=prev&oldid=1298940213 diff]

I am bringing this article here following WP:THIRDOPINION advice - see the talk page.

Essentially my issue is that {{User|InilanNahklia}} added a large amount of content in a "Controversies" section, which I asserted was a violation of WP:UNDUE. The editor who provided the third opinion, {{User|Hipal}}, agreed with the undue weight argument (the content was at least 50% of the whole article) but pointed out that there were some BLP issues in what had been added.

This ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dorset_Police&diff=prev&oldid=1298940213 diff]) is the latest version of what was added - I reverted the addition following the third opinion advice, but without any discussion InilanNahklia went against that third opinion and just reinstated it without any explanation or engagement with that third opinion on the talk page.

So now we're at a stalemate. It's a dispute that could go to WP:DR, but for now I think the BLP issues trump that. I have never done a report here or at WP:DR before so excuse me if I fumble in any way. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

:I provided some additional feedback at talk. Thank you for alerting us here. JFHJr (㊟) 18:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion regarding possible BLP concerns in the above linked article. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The Michel DeGraff article has a sequence of editors seeking to add material about a lawsuit against him and MIT, alleging antisemitic harassment. I have been reverting addition, but would like opinions of BLP experts as to whether this is the right thing. I do expect that inclusion is likely to eventually be WP:DUE (but WP:CRYSTAL applies). Arguing against inclusion at this time: 1) sourcing is well short of WP:NPF level, with some coverage in the local press [https://www.masslive.com/news/2025/06/lawsuit-mit-professor-harassed-israeli-researcher-jewish-student-as-president-stood-by.html] and a fair bit of coverage in the Jewish and Israeli press [https://www.jns.org/severe-pervasive-jew-hatred-at-mit-per-lawsuit/][https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-859399]. 2) the lawsuit is ongoing, and we usually prefer to wait for resolution before covering. The main argument in favor of inclusion that I see, is that DeGraff said in an automated email responder that he has been "removed" from the linguistic department (but is still faculty at large at MIT). If we could directly connect such removal with the lawsuit and harassment allegations, then that would be the kind of professional consequence under which we might include the material with the current sourcing. Pinging {{u| Ekpyros}}, who most recently added this material (the other adders were mostly IPs with few other edits). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

:According to [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/jun/25/lawsuit-rips-mit-becoming-breeding-ground-antisemitism/ this source], which is WP:MREL, his removal from the linguistic department is {{tq|over public attacks on the university for rejecting his course proposal.}} There's also a link included in that article to a letter dated November 2024, he claims he received from the dean of the Humanities Department. There's also [https://sampan.org/2024/boston/palestine-is-the-new-vietnam-says-mit-linguistics-professor-degraff/ this source], which backs up the claim he was removed from the department back in November 2024. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

:: ... which removes the only case I see for inclusion of the material on the lawsuit at this time. Until someone makes a policy-based argument for inclusion, I will keep reverting as necessary. I guess that this aspect of the article probably falls under WP:ARBPIA, and that edits of non-EC editors can be reverted for that reason if necessary. Thank you, and apologies for missing that the removal from linguistics happened earlier. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Isaidnoway|prefix=|p=}} and {{reply to|Russ Woodroofe|prefix=|p=}}: The lawsuit certainly appears to be, if not directly related to the controversy regarding his rejected course, at least the culmination of responses to DeGraff's "activism" and alleged antisemitism. The course issue is also referenced in numerous RS, including [https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-curricular-clash-at-mit The Chronicle of Higher Education], and I am all in favor of covering that subject as well—although I don't believe it needs to be directly linked to the lawsuit for both episodes to be notable enough for inclusion in our article. Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:::His removal from the linguistic department isn't because of the lawsuit, and there are no sources that state it was. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for alerting me, {{reply to| Russ Woodroofe|prefix=|p=}}. I very much appreciate your input, and there's no question that you're far more versed in Wikipedia guidance than am I. That said, I respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions, for a few reasons:

:*How is DeGraff a WP:NPF for the purposes of the lawsuit and its inclusion in our biographical article about him? He is a tenured and chaired MIT professor, an acknowledged expert in his field, and—most importantly—he has extensively and repeatedly aired his thoughts on the subjects touched upon in the lawsuit in public, including in mass media. Indeed, the suit not only alleges that he used his position and public following to bring attention to his innumerate online postings and mass emails, but specifically asserts that he harassed, defamed, and doxxed a plaintiff in an article he authored for Le Monde.

:*While I understand our preference for resolved litigation, certainly that's not a hard-and-fast rule—and in this case, the fact that numerous and diverse RS have found it notable seems to more than meet our test for inclusion. The Brandeis Center is an important and widely respected human-rights organization, and their involvement lends significant weight to the seriousness and credibility of the lawsuit.

:*The sourcing seems more than adequate to me—in addition to types of sources you mentioned, the lawsuit has been covered by [https://thetech.com/2025/07/10/antisemitism-lawsuit MIT's largest newspaper], numerous articles from a [https://freebeacon.com/campus/mit-declined-to-investigate-professor-who-harassed-jewish-students-complaint/ broad] [https://www.dailywire.com/news/mind-infection-meet-the-mit-linguistics-professor-who-begged-to-teach-an-anti-israel-seminar base of] [https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2025/06/25/human-rights-group-files-lawsuit-against-mit-for-antisemitism/ publications], including a [https://www.campusreform.org/article/mit-professor-scrutiny-calling-zionism-mind-infection/26871 campus watchdog nonprofit]. In addition, I frankly don't understand your rationale for claiming that what you describe as "the Jewish and Israeli press" is somehow inadequate to meet the requirements of WP:BLP. The subject of the suit is antisemitism, something that will of course be of more interest to some publications than others—but surely that doesn't mean that The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, or JNS aren't high-quality sources, does it? I can't imagine anyone would put forth the same argument using terms like "the black press" or "the Muslim press" if the issue at hand was claims of racism or harassment of Muslims. Can you explain your apparent dismissal of "Jewish sources" a bit more?

:Looking forward to your thoughts—and those of others. Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

{{Collapse AI top}}

I'm reaching out about a section on Smriti Irani's profile, titled "Trivialising Child Abuse". I've spent a considerable amount of time navigating Wikipedia's policies, and my concern here isn't about personal likes or dislikes. It's about something far more fundamental: ensuring our encyclopedia remains a truly reliable and fair source of information, especially when it comes to living individuals.

My request boils down to a core principle we all cherish: Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP. This policy isn't just a guideline; it's a bedrock principle designed to protect people from potentially damaging claims that aren't impeccably sourced. And frankly, when I look at the "Trivialising Child Abuse" section, my instincts tell me we might be falling short here.

From what I can gather, the content in question seems to originate from reports about an Instagram story – the kind of thing that often gets labeled "viral" or sparks "buzz" in news cycles. While traditional news outlets might report on such online phenomena, we need to ask ourselves: are these types of reports truly robust enough to support such a serious accusation against a living person?

Here's why I'm deeply concerned:

The Nuance of "Viral" Content: Think about how quickly things can be taken out of context on social media. An Instagram post can be fleeting, a single moment captured, then amplified and interpreted in myriad ways. When news sources then report on this "buzz," they're often capturing a public reaction or a narrative that might be heavily sensationalized. This isn't always about factual reporting of an event itself, but rather reporting on the public's emotional response to it.

A Story, Not a Fact: An Instagram story, even if widely discussed, isn't inherently a verified, in-depth public event in the way a legislative debate or a major press conference might be. Basing such a weighty accusation – "trivializing child abuse" – on what appears to be a social media interaction, risks manipulating the narrative and presenting a highly charged interpretation as an undeniable fact. This feels like a perilous path for a serious encyclopedia.

The Fine Line Between Opinion and Fact: We constantly strive for a Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. If the sources are primarily reporting on online outrage or opinion surrounding an Instagram post, then we are, in essence, incorporating someone's opinion or a collective interpretation as a factual statement about the subject's actions. This can easily lead to misrepresentation and, frankly, risks maligning Smriti Irani's public image based on what may have been misquoted or misunderstood within the rapid currents of social media. Our role isn't to amplify every public outcry, but to distill verified, balanced information.

In short, for an allegation of this magnitude in a biography of a living person, we need exceptionally strong, dispassionate, and verifiable sources. Reports built around "viral" social media moments, however widespread, often don't meet that very high bar. My worry is that this section, as it stands, could inadvertently vandalize someone's reputation not through malice, but by relying on sources that just aren't designed to support such a heavy burden of proof under WP:BLP.

Given these very serious policy concerns, particularly with the stringent requirements of WP:BLP, I respectfully but firmly request that the "Trivialising Child Abuse" section be removed. When contentious, negative material about a living person is poorly sourced, WP:BLP actually instructs us to remove it immediately, without waiting for prolonged discussion. I believe this situation falls squarely into that category.

Let's ensure Wikipedia remains a place of fairness and accuracy, built on solid, unambiguous facts, not fleeting online interpretations.

Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this matter.{{Collapse AI bottom}} Leeyong Wang (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

:I took one look at it and removed it. Entirely undue, given the sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

This youtuber is (in)famous online solely for his 2021 arrest, which didn't end up with any prosecution or conviction. The Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy policy about biographies] says that wikipedians should avoid including information from primary sources on such articles, but this page includes an obscure court document to expose the fact that this guy had tried to change his name, and that he was met with hostile armed men at his house. The policy also says that articles about people only known for one event should not be made, which is apparently the reason why this page had been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EDP445 deleted a week after it was made in 2021]. Can people more familiar with this policy take a look? V. S. Video (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:I've removed some of the content, but others should look and may want to remove more. PARAKANYAA has already started a deletion discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be some kind of edit conflict on this article. Apparently the subject reportedly made stolen valor claims and I believe recently admitted it. Looking at the history of the article there are numerous edits going back and forth about the topic and its coverage. Personally I think there should be some mention of the controversy in the personal life section or military history section but I am not familiar with the policies on BLP information, and im mostly retired from editing myself. I'd hope maybe someone here can do what needs to be done. I should note that the user GeorgeTSW seems to be editing potentially in a biased manner. Here is a diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Kennedy_%28fighter%29&diff=1299694252&oldid=1299686570] Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I came across an article on a youtuber, EDP445 (slightly above on this page, actually), and it had a pic of his signature, :File:EDP445 sig.svg, in the infobox. My knee-jerk reaction was to remove it since I didn't see it as useful (and I did). Then I looked at where it came from, [https://archive.org/details/rdt-20220220-1520333562933348462557264/RDT_20220220_1520465775258520861644655.jpg], which seems to be an upload by someone of a 2021 public document.

So, does this use in the article count as a WP:BLPPRIMARY violation on WP? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:Doesn't matter. Signature should not be there in any case. Per Template:infobox person, Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject, and ensure that this information is sourced in the article or (if present only in the infobox) in the infobox itself. Signature is useful for visual artists, for example, but no reason it should be relevant for a YouTuber. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, but people sometimes like to add signatures to all kinds of people, politicians are not that uncommon (like Simon Ekpa), possibly because it's seen as adding some gravitas or whatever. And IMO it does matter if this "case" is a BLP-violation or just a bad stylistic choice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced material keeps being added back to the Josh Kraft article, despite multiple issues around synthesis, original research and just bad use of sources. The material has been removed for such issues but it gets being added back. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josh%20Kraft&diff=prev&oldid=1297576592 First time], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josh%20Kraft&diff=next&oldid=1298699984 second time ] and a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josh%20Kraft&diff=next&oldid=1299662376 third time]. The material in question makes contentious claims which are sourced to reddit, text on photos similarly make claims that are either unsourced or one is sourced to an NBC article that makes no mention of Kraft. This has been discussed as well in the talk page but still was added back anyways despite being challenged and very possibly a BLP violation. This mainly revolves around the portion talking about a truck used by Kraft's campaign. SlackingViceroy (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:I've reverted the addition [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josh_Kraft&diff=prev&oldid=1299786247], warned them against edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danrose909&diff=prev&oldid=1299786385] and have provided further input on the article's talk page including an explanation of WP:ONUS. If another editor would weigh in there that would be welcome. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

::The disputed portion talking about trucks used by Kraft's campaign has been deleted. Other portions with separate citations to the Boston Herald and UniversalHub were apparently inadvertently deleted at the same time. Danrose909 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{la|Elias James Corey}}

Someone has been trying to remove or radically rewrite the Altom suicide section under different accounts for more than 15 years now. This person thinks that the section somehow fails to "recognize the role of depression in suicide" and the only way to fix that is by either removing the whole thing or disclaiming Corey's role in the suicide. They claim to not have a COI with the article subject but they uploaded Corey's picture, citing it as their own work. When I asked them about this, they claimed they got the picture from someone else. I would appreciate a closer look at this situation. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:I am the person that Children Will Listen mentions. I have not been trying to change the section for 15 years. I made changes 15 years ago as Trvthchem and went to update the section recently (nothing for 15 years).

:I tried to post recently as Trvthchem2, but Children Will Listen said that I could not and should change my username which I did to FinchSc. I don't know who HU2000 and Pskme92 are. If Children Will Listen is saying I am HU2000 or Pskme92 - Children Will Listen is wrong. I am not either of those usernames and have absolutely no idea who they are.

:I explained how I came to have a photo of EJ Corey in the talk page of the Corey Wikipedia article - I ran into someone with a personal photo of Corey who agreed to let me use the photo but did not want to be identified with it. So we agreed that I would upload it under my username.

:I have explained in the talk section why I am interested in this Altom Suicide section, but Children Will Listen seems to be quite sure that I am Corey or someone personally associated with him. I have never met Corey nor have I ever been at any event public or private where Corey is present. I am not a chemist. I am not sure why Children Will Listen does not take me at my word as to why I have an interest in this section.

:Take a look at the Corey page talk section to get the full discussion. FinchSc (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:@ChildrenWillListen, I see you've listed several users. If this is a situation where you suspect they are the same individual or working illicitly in coordination, please see sockpuppet investigations. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

::Most of these accounts are too stale (7 to 15 years old) so CU probably isn't the way to go. User:Trvthchem and User:Trvthchem2 are obviously the same person, and I advised User:Trvthchem2 to change their username since words like "truth" tend to indicate COI editing, for which they chose to create User:FinchSc. Based on the edits and time they started to edit, it is reasonable to say that User:HU2000 is closely related to these accounts. Even if they're socks, they shouldn't be blocked since most of these account edits are spaced out over a long period of time. They chose to use the talk page in good faith, so I didn't want to go to ANI over this even with the COI evidence. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:::And besides, what they ask is somewhat reasonable since having a whole section on something the subject was tangentially involved with, particularly considering that the subject is a Nobel Prize winner, might be considered WP:UNDUE. I am not requesting anyone to be sanctioned here (and I don't think anyone should be), just for people to look at this situation and see what can be done. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:::I have removed the userlinks just to make it clear I'm not seeking sanctions for anyone. I'm sorry if it was construed that way; this user is acting in good faith and I'm just seeking a third opinion here. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Alright. I found a standalone section about the suicide of another person to be WP:UNDUE on an encyclopedically biographical scale. I left a note to that effect on the talkpage, where further discussion should occur. JFHJr (㊟) 04:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::The suicide deserves mention in Corey's biography as there are several RS[https://www.chronicle.com/article/harvard-faces-the-aftermath-of-a-graduate-students-suicide/][https://www.nature.com/articles/27487][https://books.google.com/books?id=4aScfMumCMoC&pg=PA256&dq=altom+corey+suicide+harvard&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjv5--t77WOAxVDnSYFHcynDrsQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=altom%20corey%20suicide%20harvard&f=false] discussing his role as an advisor. What I found UNDUE was FinchSc insertion of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention's (an advocacy organization, not a peer-reviewed RS) opinion about the matter which had no secondary coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi all

Please can I ask someone with experience in BLP review Israel Frey with some urgency? I found the article making many claims that were not supported by the sources including that he believes the Israeli government is facist and he is a 'far-left activist'. There appears to be some discussion on the talk page already, but I started by removing the claims that I could see needed a lot of strong referencing but weren't provided by the sources.

Also I see that this person is in the news currently and the article can likely be expanded significantly.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, I agree with you about the sources not supporting the label "far left". However, the sources do support the statement that Frey believes the Israeli government is fascist:

:[https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-journalist-detained-praising-armed-palestinian Middle East Eye]: {{tquote|After his release on Tuesday, Frey accused the new Israeli government of being "fascist" and wanting to make us "weak and scared".}}

:[https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sjfezd00ki Ynet]: {{tquote|After his release, the dovish journalist hit out at the incoming hardline government, labeling it "fascistic."}}

:
Here are 2 additional sources:

:[http://archive.today/2022.12.27-131656/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-12-27/ty-article/.premium/left-wing-israeli-journalist-detained-on-suspicion-of-inciting-terrorism/00000185-5376-d878-a995-577e25700000 Haaretz] {{tquote|After being summoned for questioning last month, Frey said: "The new government is already here. It is violent, fascist, terrorizing, allows others to kill political opponents, and now wants to scare me. Our dear country is being controlled by anti-democratic forces. The police minister is an avowed nationalist. I have no intention of lowering my head."}}

:[https://archive.fo/IEkpT#selection-1271.37-1271.105 Haaretz] (op-ed by Frey): {{tquote|This is no longer our state. It has been occupied by fascist forces.}} Rainsage (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, a clear consensus on whether we should mention Mohamed Hadid's Palestinian identity in the lead is needed. I tried WP:DRN (thread) before but failed. Previous discussions: User talk:Thedarkknightli#Mohamed Hadid, Talk:Mohamed Hadid/Archives/2025#National identity in infobox, and Talk:Mohamed Hadid#National identity in lead. Pinging @Huldra, @Quaerens-veritatem, and @Nswix. Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• As previously stated, theres no reason to, WP:INFONAT is pretty clear, he's notable as an American, developing property in America. If he was notable for his Palestinian rights work or something, it'd be obvious. But even today, his article doesn't mention anything about it, other than being born to Palestinian parents. Nswix (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• This is beating a dead horse. This forum is for dealing with biographies of living people (BLP) policy, the non-BLP issue of the lead contents was resolved on the article Talk page, and that discussion does not require additional input. Thedarkknightli, you keep bringing this up when it is obvious there is no, nor there will be, consensus to change the lead including as shown in his Talk page and with a WP:DRN failure. Agree, once again, with {{u|Nswix}} who pointed out, and as MOS:ETHNICITY specifies, it is not relevant to his notability. Considering the entire article, his personal standing that he belongs to an ethnonational group while he's not a citizen of the State of Palestine is not sufficiently notable for the lead. His 'Early life' section has him "born into a Palestinian Muslim family", and 'Personal life' section has "Hadid identifies as an American-Palestinian"; this is sufficient. Take away property development and he wouldn't have an article. He's known for being a property developer in the US and that is his notability. The Wikipedia precepts for the opening paragraph are, wikiquotes: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was such when they became notable." Further, MOS:FIRSTBIO "Context (location, nationality, etc.) ...for the activities that made the person notable. ...The main reason the person is notable... MOS:ETHNICITY: The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." (emphasis supplied) He was not notable because he was a Palestinian, he was notable for being a real estate developer mostly in Beverly Hills, with or without being self-declared Palestinian. Clearly, from the article, he is known for "Developing mansions in Bel Air and Beverly Hills" in the US. Of course, I question whether the article meets notability in the first place. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

In January 2025, an IP editor added a note to this article about allegations concerning the article subject that had been reported at that time in the college newspaper: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._Stephen_Morse&diff=1271849529&oldid=1259652792]. As near as I can tell, there has been no further follow-up reporting in that publication, nor in any other reliable source I have been able to find. Where the article now stands is that allegations were made, and the allegations were denied by the article subject. Is it just me, or is there no there there, to channel Gertrude Stein. In short, should the addition be removed per WP:BLP standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glane23 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:I removed the section as being poorly sourced. A student newspaper as the only source for the allegations is not enough for inclusion per BLP. Also, please remember to sign your posts. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Isaidnoway}} Yes, way! Thank you and sorry I just forgot to sign... Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

This article's talkpage is running a second RfC as to whether to include the name of the accused. More input would be appreciated! Again! JFHJr (㊟) 02:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The sentence: "On the 13th of July, he was appointed Minister of Police, replacing Senzo Mchunu. [7]" is correct, but was inserted at a point where it causes the next sentence not to make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.143.135.30 (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

:P.S. The footnote reference belongs to the previous sentence. The quoted sentence itself should be moved to the end of the Academic section, or to a second "Political" section, and should include the year, 2025, after "13th of July". That was clearly a rushed edit to update the entry within minutes of the appointment. 192.143.135.30 (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

::It's been resolved (not by me), but note to the IP - the page isn't protected, so you could have edited yourself. Nthep (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|WP:NAC: This noticeboard is a forum only for subjects who are living persons or recently deceased. JFHJr (㊟) 17:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)}}

It has been stated in Muhammad Ali of Egypt page that he is Albanian.

Though all the non-western official papers don't have any such claim.

There is a document made by his son İbrahim states that they are from a town near konya.

But the editor being Albanian want to claim this and as I grandson of Muhammad Ali this is not what my family and our documents say.

So this is a defamatory for us we weren't at any point Albanian. M.MehmetSerhan (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}