Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Autograph as signature in infobox

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

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

{{archive top|WP:NAC. This article was deleted at AfD. Please repost in case of problematic recreation. JFHJr (㊟) 22:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

This article is at AfD and looks to be headed for deletion, but in the interim we're seeing persistent additions of unsourced or poorly sourced details - eyes would be appreciated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WifiSkeleton&diff=prev&oldid=1290085500 this AfD comment] for a reason this apparent snowball might melt into a keep (per OP) or a redirect (my response). More BLP-related insight would still be helpful at this deletion discussion. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

I have repeatedly tried to edit this bio to be accurate and positive.

Someone created this profile who obviously had a personal problem with Mr. Evans.

They have created a bio that is demeaning, incorrect and embarrassing.

His family deaths are not to be shared with the public - it is a private and painful event.

The work history is inaccurate and inappropriate.

I keep getting responses back from Wiki that my edits are a conflict of interest. However I would offer that whoever wrote this damaging bio is the person who has a conflict of interest and is simply trying to defame Mr. Evans.

If you do not allow an accurate and appropirate profile we will ask to delete.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabemil (talk • contribs) 15:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Courtesy link Charles Evans Jr. Knitsey (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:This user restored content added by an IP user who admitted that the content was created by them and the article's subject as noted on their talk page, which is a conflict of interest. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Evans_Jr.&oldid=1290391464 The edit] also includes no sources and was described by another editor as turning the article into a resume[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Evans_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=1252499238]. ScottishFinnishRadish has just removed some of the content that I assume this user had a problem with, which hopefully alleviates some of the issue. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 16:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I removed an WP:UNDUE standalone charity section that had no reliable sourcing. It also smelled like a self-interested insertion. More eyes on the prose would be helpful. JFHJr (㊟) 01:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Clearly notable, but can we use their Facebook and X pages as sources? Also, is the "netizens" thing ok? Seems a bit fanboy and ephemeral (and a bit confusing). Doug Weller talk 07:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• The Facebook and X sources are apparently both announcements by the Pakistan Air Force. Assuming these actually are from official PAF sources, I can't see any reason why we shouldn't use them in the same way as we would use any other official announcement e.g. on their website or in a press release. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks. I just wanted that confirmed. Which leaves the Netizens issue. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|WP:NAC. Perhaps explore Articles for creation. There is no BLP problem here, so BLPN is not the correct forum. JFHJr (㊟) 04:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Babalola Oluwasegun Michael Olashina, known as Hollarziko, is a dynamic Nigerian artist and songwriter celebrated for his vibrant afrobeat tunes. Originating from Akure, Ondo State, and currently based in Lagos, his musical journey is a testament to the rich cultural tapestry of Nigeria. Born in October 1997, Hollarziko draws inspiration from life's experiences, infusing his tracks with authentic rhythms and captivating lyrics. Hollarziko (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Article does not exist. This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people policy to article content. You can always request an article to be written, but please keep in mind that the article must be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Articles must be about notable topics: those that have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. We have a fairly precise definition of what is considered a reliable source, as well as detailed inclusion guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

There is a dispute over the correct handling of the name of Julia Barretto. She is a Filipino actress and there are editors who insist that Filipino names have to follow a specific format which includes the father's family name. I feel that this does not trump WP:COMMONNAME or the fact that Barretto herself clearly does not wish to be associated with her father's name (for understandable reasons) as described at Julia_Barretto#Legal_actions. Even if it is true that the father's name is a part of her legal name I don't think it should be overused and certainly should not be the first name we use (in bold!) in the opening section of the article. We are not beholden to legal names in the same way that government records are. Obviously, we should continue to cover it in the section about the legal dispute and it could also go in the infobox as her birth name, if validly sourced, but I think that anything more than that is overkill bordering on (unintentional) cruelty. My attempts to make this point have been met with responses that are not based in policy here, here and here. None of this sits well with me. We wouldn't treat a trans person like this and I think that this is a rare situation were a cis person needs the same type of consideration. I think this would benefit from examination from those more versed in the intricacies of BLP policy than myself, particularly if they have some experience with handling Filipino names, to determine the correct balance between factual accuracy and respect for the identity of the subject of a BLP. DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:COMMONNAME is about the article title: the article is currently titled Julia Barretto and so far as I can see there is no dispute about this point. It says nothing about whether we should include or exclude alternative names for the subject from the body text.

:As for the lead sentence, MOS:FULLNAME (part of MOS:BIO, the same guideline which contains MOS:DEADNAME) says {{tq|While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, {{strong|the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence}} (including middle names, if known, or middle initials). Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but {{strong|the article should start with the complete version in most cases}}}} [emphasis mine]. As written, MOS:DEADNAME applies only to {{em|former}} names of {{em|trans or nonbinary}} people; Barretto's birth name is still legally her name and she isn't changing it for gender reasons, so DEADNAME doesn't apply. Similarly, WP:BLPNAME advises caution in giving the names of people who aren't the subject of the article, and low-profile figures – but as an actress and the subject of the article I think you are going to struggle to make the case that her name is private here. Similarly, I see on Talk:Julia Barretto there's some discussion of WP:V, but the article cites at least two sources ([https://www.sunstar.com.ph/more-articles/julia-barretto-to-change-surname-to-prevent-confusion], [https://mb.com.ph/2021/6/6/julia-barretto-still-carries-real-surname-of-father-dennis-padilla-sources]) which support that this is in fact her legal surname. I don't know enough about Filipino sources to comment on their reliability - perhaps they are insufficient for BLP claims - but they are used elsewhere in the article.

:I agree this is the kind of case where it would be in the spirit of the rules to omit the birth name if she has genuinely never been professionally known by it and she wants to no longer be associated with it – but as I read the rules currently they {{em|do}} encourage inclusion and it's up to you to persuade editors of that article that we should exclude the name. It might be worth bringing up expanding MOS:DEADNAME at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography if you feel strongly about it – it has been discussed on that talkpage before, though the most recent proposal got no traction. I'm also not sure how good this specific example is as a test case. You say that Barretto "clearly does not wish to be associated with her father's name", but one of the cited sources quotes a statement by her representatives that the change of name is purely "to prevent confusion" and she "continues to recognize and respect Dennis as her father". Whether or not we believe that's the whole truth, she's apparently not saying publicly "I don't want to be associated with Dennis Padilla"; her public position is that this is a name change for purely professional reasons. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Talk:Nancy (comic strip)

I think Olivia Jaimes should be merged/redirected to Nancy (comic strip). Literally all the article says is that we don't know anything about her and that she may be someone else's pen name. If nothing about her is known, and she's done nothing other than Nancy, she should be redirected. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:More eyes and input here would be most welcome. The discussion has grown to include at least one other marginally/non-notable author of Nancy. JFHJr (㊟) 04:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I posted this on her talk page but didn't receive a reply so am trying here. In a speech in parliament, she says "As a solo parent..." which makes me think that she's no longer married. Is this sufficient to update the article accordingly? But there is no timeframe on when this in fact happened. Thoughts? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's unclear if this WP:ABOUTSELF declaration overcomes a government transcript aka WP:BLPPRIMARY. No secondary source has reported on this? Also there is some OR to presume she's not married. She could be separated and be a "solo parent".Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for your reply @Morbidthoughts. You bring up some great points! I looked for a secondary source - couldn't find one. This is a tricky one - hence me bringing it to the community for discussion. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I would think it's to ambiguous to change anything on her article. They could be divorced, or just separated, or there is some other situation we haven't thought of. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok thanks. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The article Laura Ingraham inexplicably contains the phrase "abusive alcoholic and Nazi sympathizer" TWICE, once in the section "Early life and education" and once in the section "Homosexuality". Both times, the only source cited is WP:DAILYBEAST, which says "Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laura_Ingraham#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_29_April_2025 Multiple] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laura_Ingraham#Burying_the_information_on_an_alcoholic_parent requests] by two different users to remove the content were ignored by {{User|Wuerzele}} who added the content 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:496D:73D8:2EE6:1805 (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Some context might help. It's not a statement of fact. It's a brother describing their father, who is not a living person, in a tweet reported by the Daily Beast. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::It is a "fact related to living persons" (from WP:DAILYBEAST). It's from a weak source. It's in the article twice. 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:1123:887F:C94D:2CF2 (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's not a fact that the father was an "abusive alcoholic and Nazi sympathizer" and Wikipedia does not say it is. It is an attributed opinion of a sibling. LGBTQ Nation is an alternative source[https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/09/fox-news-host-laura-ingrahams-gay-brother-calls-monster/], but that is just reporting on the reporting of a social media post. That source is used [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=0&target=www.lgbtqnation.com 1490 times] in Wikipedia. Whether the brother's opinion belongs in the article seems like a question of due weight. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Personally, I'd leave it out as UNDUE. His opinion of their father is irrelevant in her biography, especially considering the context in which the comment was made. I left a comment in the discussion on the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. It would be appreciated if some experienced Wikipedians could contribute to the discussion at File talk:Luigi Mangione sig.svg. guninvalid (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:The alleged signature is a hoax and the file should be deleted. Please take a look at the evidence on the file tall page and comment there. Cullen328 (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, we're having a bit of a dispute on whether to include the name of the train driver who was convicted after the Kirkby train crash. The diff of the removal of the name is available here. Quite a lot of discussion has occurred over at Template:Did you know nominations/Kirkby train crash, so I won't repeat it here (I don't think the dispute is particularly relevant to the DYK nomination, it seems to have branched off an initial concern regarding the DYK hook. I haven't split out the discussion because of the initial context on that page). We'd appreciate others views on this, thanks FozzieHey (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{La|Eric Yao}}

I stumbled into this and normally don't post here. Please see this disscussion on the article Talk page. As far as I can see, the negative material that was removed was well-sourced, so as I said, the question as to whether it should be removed hinges on WP:PUBLICFIGURE.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

In summer 2023 I asked BLP/N about how to handle the unreported change in marital status of Sequoia Partners VC Jim Goetz. My challenge: the article states he is married, which was once true but is no longer. Mr. Goetz keeps a WP:LOWPROFILE these days, so no RS has reported on the fact, and the article remains out-of-date. And because Mr. Goetz is my client, I make a point of avoiding any direct edits to the live article.

The last time I posted here, one editor suggested we contact Forbes, the source currently in use. Unfortunately, Forbes has not responded to our inquiries. I also obtained a complete copy of the judgment reflecting the finalized divorce on 12/30/22. Recently I shared this with the VRT, hoping they could verify its authenticity to assist in making the change, but VRT declined. Subsequently, I posted a message on the Jim Goetz talk page about this, but have had no replies in the two weeks since.

At Mr. Goetz's very reasonable request, I cannot share the full file, but perhaps some redacted version if it might do the trick? Another alternative surely is to use the {{as of}} template, although that would at best make the article less wrong. I'd love to see if anyone here has any suggestions which could help figure out the best way to resolve this issue. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:One problem with the Forbes piece is that it's undated, making "as of" setting a problem.

:I realize that Mr. Goetz is low profile, but he does have some public facing. If on [https://www.sequoiacap.com/people/jim-goetz/ this page] of his company website, it was to be added in the "personal side" section "Divorced Dad", that would probably be sufficient, but I can understand the company not wanting to make that part of his brand. Or on [http://linkedin.com/in/goetzjim/ his LinkedIn], some statement along the line of "Jim has three children with his ex-wife" that too should work for us saying he's divorced (but oddly, not for us saying his wife was divorced.) These things need not be on their permanently; long enough to make sure they are recorded on Wikipedia and show up on the Internet Archive, so they can be verified. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reply, {{u|NatGertler}}. Good point about Forbes being undated; I had noted that in my recent post on his Talk page, but not here. That's an interesting idea about using LinkedIn for the purpose. I know social media isn't usually considered the best source, but I think this use case should satisfy WP:PRIMARYCARE. I'll see what I can do. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::LinkedIn should be fine under WP:BLPSPS. A divorce is considered non-boastful material. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|NatGertler}} Would you say the same for X / Twitter? Jim has used it [https://x.com/jimgoetz since 2009]. Although verified status there clearly isn't what it used to be, a quick scroll makes clear it's definitely his personal account. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::If we can verify it's his personal account. As you say, it's verified status ain't what it used to be (i.e., actual verification), but if the account were linked to via something we can recognize as his, such as the corporate site or even his LinkedIn, it should be good. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello English Wikipedia editors,

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

On 15 May 2025, the Wikimedia Foundation received an email (“the letter”) from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO). The letter requests that, under the [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2340 Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022] (wikilink), for all articles on current U.S. federal judges, their full dates of birth be removed, leaving only the year of birth. The letter cites the BLP policy to justify this request, in particular the section "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources".

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

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

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

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

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

:: {{tq2|Sec. 1(b). Nothing in this Act shall be construed—

::: (A) to prohibit, restrain, or limit—

:::: ...

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

:::...

::: (B) Exclusion

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

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

:::...

:::: {{tq2|Sec. 5(c)(1)(B) Other businesses

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

:::::...

:::::(C) Exceptions

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

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

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

:::@BD2412 perfectly stated. And this act's provisions are not even signed into law. It's not a statute yet is it? [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l6MinvU93kI It's just a bill]. JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::::@JFHJr it's a [https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2022/12/16/congress-passes-daniel-anderl-judicial-security-and-privacy-act law]. My guess is it got rolled into some omnibus which is why the Congressional site still just shows as introduced. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

::::Here's the final text, from [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ263/pdf/PLAW-117publ263.pdf 2022] (starts on the bottom of p. 3458). WP clearly isn't a data broker, and unless it falls under "association" (which isn't defined in the Act), then it also isn't a "person, business, or association," and so the Act simply doesn't apply here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::I'm also receptive to the request, per WP:DOB. But if there's consensus for that, WMF should make it clear to the government that (a) we cannot prevent an editor from adding the information back in (though we could put a hidden note about it), and (b) in any event, the changes will not satisfy the text of the law, which says {{tq2|After receiving a written request under paragraph (1)(B), the person, business, or association shall— (i) remove within 72 hours the covered information identified in the written request from the internet and ensure that the information is not made available on any website or subsidiary website controlled by that person, business, or association and identify any other instances of the identified information that should also be removed.}} This info will remain available in each article's edit history. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Noting re {{lu|Privmaman}}. If there's a disruptive editing problem, there's a better forum for that. JFHJr (㊟) 05:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::::::I was looking at some of these yesterday and it appears that the month and day is no longer part of the standard questionnaire, just the year. See for example[https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Talley%20SJQ.pdf] Jahaza (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m with Newyorkbrad on this one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Regarding {{tq|remove within 72 hours the covered information identified in the written request from the internet and ensure that the information is not made available on any website or subsidiary website controlled by that person, business, or association and identify any other instances of the identified information that should also be removed}},

[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ263/pdf/PLAW-117publ263.pdf]. p. 3465. does this imply that oversighting alone will be sufficient, or does it require the WMF to edit the information out from each individual revision on the database, since the information would still be accessible to those with access otherwise? Svampesky (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

: As far as the availability of this information: the US Senate Judiciary Committee's Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees, in 1998, included "date and place of birth" [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Confirmation_Hearings_on_Federal_Appoint/glM2AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA27&printsec=frontcover]; for a 2021 nominee it includes "year and place of birth" [https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Heytens%20SJQ%20Public%20Final.pdf]. As noted above, the societal trend is for more privacy of personal information; other than possibly for Supreme Court justices (who are substantially higher profile individuals) I don't see a compelling reason not to remove the exact birth date. 65.144.53.2 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

A while back there was a long discussion on the Micheal Gira talk page about an abuse allegation against him and its inclusion on his page. An editor claims that the coverage of the allegations shouldn't happen because he's "not a public figure", among other claims on why they think the claims should not be included. I have responded to several of them on why I think they are incorrect.. I would like to have some other editors revisit this as I felt the discussion didn't really go anywhere with only a few editors involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringerfan23 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:That discussion hasn't been touched since 2023, and none of its other participants supported inclusion of the allegation. My stance is that those allegations were vague, received some very immediate coverage (like, day of and the next) simply reporting what had been alleged, and was then mentioned mostly in passing a handful of times in press related to his band's next album. It strikes me as very undue for his biography. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I've initiated an RfC regarding the inclusion of the following sentence in the lead section of T. V. S. N. Prasad:

"His bureaucratic career, including his role as Chief Secretary of the Government of Haryana, has been the subject of sustained public and legal scrutiny due to a series of controversies and administrative decisions that attracted criticism from courts, media, and civil society."

This sentence summarizes events already detailed in the article's "Controversies" section, which are supported by reliable, independent sources such as The Tribune, Hindustan Times, Economic Times, Indian Express, and official court records.

I believe the content is neutrally worded and aligns with Wikipedia's core content policies, including verifiability (WP:V), due weight (WP:DUE), and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). The RfC seeks community consensus on whether this summary is appropriate for inclusion in the lead.

Your input would be greatly appreciated: Talk:T. V. S. N. Prasad#RFC: Inclusion of Sourced Controversies in Lead Section 2

Thanks! Thouartmylife (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Just noting that significant portions of the sourced "Controversies" section and the lead sentence were removed by another editor shortly after the RfC was posted. I’ve restored the content for now and asked that the article be kept stable while community discussion is ongoing. Would appreciate neutral input. Thouartmylife (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Not too familiar with BLP but I was concerned since the things he is notable for are generally contentious and there are few inline citations.Czarking0 (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Also wanted to say that people on discord brought up some AI concern with this article or some of its editors. I am not knowledgeable enough on that front to really comment on it. Czarking0 (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::With respect to contentious material, WP:BLPRS notes "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." So delete whatever you believe falls in that category, saying something like "removing poorly sourced contentious material, per WP:BLPRS" in your edit summary, and then open a discussion on the talk page. Looks like the article was created today by a fairly new editor, and you and that editor are the only people who've edited it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears that someone is repeatedly editing this page to include unsourced, irrelevant, or self-promotional material.

About a month ago, I flagged this page as being written in a biased and self-promotional tone. In response,User:ActivelyDisinterested edited this page to significantly horten it and remove irrelevant/self-promotional/unsourced material.

A new account has gone back and re-added almost all of the material that was previously removed to cast the subject of the article, without any explanation save for claiming 'a lot of infomration was missing'.

Could someone have a look at this? It might be worth looking at protections on the page too if these edits continue. That may be a bit over-the-top, but it seems that someone is determined to continue editing the page to cast the subject of the article in an incredibly flattering light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leodensians (talk • contribs) 09:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:This does not appear to need WP:RPP, as it looks like you reverted the change and it has not reappeared. I'll be happy to temporarily watch the page. But there doesn't appear to be anything egregious to correct. Thank you for hashing out your concerns on the talkpage. Sorry the proponent/s for inclusion have not replied. I will leave them a WP:PING there. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just to say my edits where due to the article being brought here previously on the 24th of April. I've added a comment to the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you - sorry, wasn’t sure of the best way of going about it and after posting the above thought I may as well edit to revert to align with the version produced by user:ActivelyDisinterested. Leodensians (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the articles talk page about adding a details about controversies to the article. Some experienced BLP eyes would be helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The article for Julius Malema is in a terrible state. I went to add it to my watchlist and found that BLP violating comments existed at article talk that had remained up for over a year. The tone of the article is just bizarre and it honestly needs a total tear-down and rebuild. Additional collaborators would be appreciated. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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