Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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.

Darializa Avila Chevalier

Regarding persistent inclusion of tweets from a Twitter account deleted long before the subject became a public figure, I would appreciate input from experienced editors on concerns regarding WP:PRIMARY and WP:DUE in a BLP. Discussion here. Thanks, إيان (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@إيان Her tweets have received coverage from CNN[1], Politico [2], the New York Times [3], the Washington Post [4], and The Hill [5]. It would be undue to not mention them. EaglesFan37 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand this position, because I thought that WP:WEIGHT goes both ways: as those old tweets are from when she was a private citizen and do not reflect her policy platform, so why would they be given prominence on her page? The tweets in question are from ~6 years ago (?) and were deleted when she deactivated her account ~4 years ago, right? She also said she regretted the tweets. It's one thing to cover the coverage of the tweets (in the context of a contentious primary), but it seems undue to repeat every facet of that coverage in detail, especially when "the detail" in question includes defamatory interpretations? — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 16:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is about how much weight reliable sources place on events. From the sources brought up by Eaglesfan37 (besides The Hill opinion piece), I think it is very unlikely that they are not warranted for mention, as those sources talked about the campaign in the context of the Tweets and subsequent reactions. Of course, given BLP policy and the large weight given by reliable sources, Chevalier's regrets and retractions should also be given prominent weight. And standard editorial processes should decide how much detail is given. 1brianm7 (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7@Chao Garden In hindsight, I didn't vet The Hill source well enough.

The tweets themselves should get their fair share of coverage. There is more coverage of her tweets than main other aspects in the article that have more coverage. Even if those posts were made before she was a public figure, that doesn't preclude them from coverage if those unearthed posts received WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS later on. The main dispute appears to be over mentioning the interracial marriage controversy and the COVID origins controversy.

The NYT source [6] mentions the interracial marriage controversy multiple times. Another NYT Source mentions [7] mentions the interracial marriage controversy and the claim that COVID originated in France controversy. Another NYT Source [8] mentions the interracial marriage controversy and COVID originated in France controversy once again. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7 to be clear, I was referring to content removed in this edit: Special:Diff/1361527027 And to your point, I don't think her retractions are covered much in the article at all, currently.

@EaglesFan37 The NYTimes interpretation of the tweets referenced in that diff is the least charitable interpretation possible. I won't repeat things here, but just to speak vaguely:

1. For the first tweet referenced, there are at least 3 ways to interpret what she said: 1. the worst way, as NYTimes does; 2. she doesn't want to discuss certain people; 3. she doesn't want to hear from certain people. And, in any case, I don't think it is clear from a single gif (?) response & 3 words + an emoji that a BLP is against something, or if she was making a joke.
2. For the second tweet, that was early in the COVID pandemic (May 2020) & I don't think most people understood the virus at that time. Focusing on that tweet (especially without providing a date and context) makes it sound like she was spreading COVID misinfo after the virus was more well understood.

— Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Chao Garden Her tweet about Covid said So you mean that once again it was PoC who intervened and stopped the spread of a European plague? Wow. Shocked. [9]. The source she reposted (Qiao Collective) was removed from Twitter a month later for spreading "Pro-Beijing narratives" [10] [11].

It wasn't just one tweet: From City & State New York [12]: Between 2018 and 2022, she called former President Joe Biden “a rapist,” wrote “fuck Kamala Harris” in response to Harris’ speech discouraging migration to the U.S., bemoaned “Black” and “Arab men” for “fetishizing ugly colonizer women,” and more.. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37

1. About the COVID tweet: again, it was posted on May 2020. Most people in the US, if I recall, weren't even masking at that point. Workplaces were starting to transition to work-from-home. To take an almost incredulous comment of hers from May 2020 & portray it as COVID misinfo, without even providing a date for context, is misleading. Moreover, take care that you aren't holding her accountable for the actions of someone else (Qiao Collective), as that would be a guilt by association fallacy. Simply retweeting an account does not mean someone knows the entire history of said account, nor does it mean they endorse everything from that account.
2. About the relationship thing: so this, in my opinion, is getting into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR territory. The previous tweet I mentioned was 1 gif, followed by 3 words and emoji that could, arguably, be interpreted in at least 3 ways (or technically a 4th away: a joke). The tweet you reference is about fetishization, specifically. So to connect both tweets and assert it is clear evidence that she holds a very controversial position is, in my opinion, defamatory.

— Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Chao Garden

1. By April 2020, most places had issues Stay-At-Home orders [13]. New York issued a mask mandate in April 2020 [14]. In April 2020, the WHO's timeline had that the virus was first identified in Wuhan, China. [15]. The tweet was misinformation, and WP:RS has treated her tweet as such. You are asking for Chevalier to be shown more WP:AGF than the sources are giving her.

2. I'm not stating she holds or doesn't hold a position, but her tweets involving interracial relationships (specifically in regards to white women) have been covered/mentioned by sources several times. The argument you are making is that WP:RS's coverage of the quote is too negative, so it shouldn't be included. EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Thank you for the WHO and stay-at-home order links, @EaglesFan37. I think in this case, hindsight is 20/20 (as the saying goes). You may recall that there was also a lot of xenophobia about COVID's origins as well, so perhaps she was being sensitive to that, at the time. Who knows. But I still maintain it is misleading to present her May 2020 tweet as COVID misinfo... are we even sure what else she said/tweeted about COVID since then? If there is clear evidence that she adjusted her perspective after she encountered more info, would that be enough to stop giving WP:UNDUE weight to this old tweet?
2. I understand that the tweets have been mentioned, but we can see both tweets in question with our own eyes. It is my opinion that neither tweet proves she holds this controversial position. And it is my understanding that even something that may be covered by a WP:RS could still be considered defamatory and WP:UNDUE by wikipedia's standards. But I would also like to see what other editors have to say on the matter.

— Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 19:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Chao Garden I agree about getting the opinions of other Wikipedians. EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• The COVID-19 origin in Europe and interracial dating/disparaging of white women tweets are verifiable and have signficant coverage in multiple secondary, non-primary reliable sources (many of which are listed here or at the bio talk page), and thus, they are due weight for the article. Period. That is how it works around here. We are not the position to overly question the interpretation of these tweets by said reliable sources in some attempt to find the truth. Trying to second guess reliable source treatment of these tweets (e.g. "she actually didn't mean that, she meant this, etc") is original research and these perspectives being put forth by Wikipedians are unverfiable and making editorial decisions on the basis of them would be improper and biased. Also, the fact that the tweets were before she was notable or that she deleted them is compeletely irrelevant. A select number of tweets have been referenced by reliable sources as being controversial and they should be mentioned. There is no justification for just vaguely mentioning she has made controversial tweets without getting specific. That would be POV whitewashing of the article. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Respectfully: I cannot help but assume you are mostly referring to my questions/comments above, though you aren't replying to me directly. To that I'll say: fair point about WP:OR (with regards to what was/wasn't meant by tweets). I still wonder about my original question, about how WP:WEIGHT can go both ways. For example, her retraction was discussed further on WP:MSNOW (see [16]); wouldn't it be balance to include that as well? — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 01:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Of course her retraction and deletion is due weight. Feel free to add whatever is verifiable concerning that. R. G. Checkers ^talk 01:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Just a note that the fact her tweets are old but still were discussed in 2026 would seem to indicate that these tweets have some degree of lasting significance. It's true that when people enter politics, their previous lives tend to come under a lot of scrutiny and some stuff is discussed which is then mostly forgotten about if they have a lengthy political career so we still have to see if sources talk about this in the future (assume she does succeed in politics) but at the moment, the evidence is these aren't simply a flash in a pan sort of thing. This is compared to the normal case where someone says something which gets discussed then a year later basically everyone has forgotten about it and it's never discussed in relation to the person again. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• I think at this point the tweets have received plenty of coverage to have some mention, and the real question is to how much quantity and scale belongs in an encyclopedia. I think it would be UNDUE to give every tweet that received coverage a mention, and it would be more appropriate to summarize all of the coverage. In an effort to move towards consensus, here's a draft:

During the primary, media reported on past tweets Avila Chevalier made from a Twitter account she used between 2018 and 2022, where she labeled Joe Biden "a rapist" before eventually voting for him, and said "fuck Kamala Harris" over migration policy—for which she later apologized. She also advocated for the abolition of prisons, police, and borders, and commented on communism, the origins of COVID-19, and interracial relationships. Avila Chevalier defended her past remarks as expressions of political disempowerment from her 20s, and said she regretted them for the division and distraction they caused. Mehdi Hasan criticized the news coverage because it was more critical than coverage of right-wing figures, while allies such as Mamdani reiterated their support for her campaign.

Sources

I do think this fails the WP:10YT test, but time will tell. Edittttor (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Was going to open a new BLP Noticeboard post, but it regards the same subject, so I thought it would be more appropriate to add it here. This dispute has now spilled out into other articles as well. This time claiming in a section titled Support for Darializa Avila Chevalier that "David Duke has voiced support for perspective Democratic congresswoman Darializa Avila Chevalier's online comments which infer an opposition to interracial relationships. Duke has stated he agrees with Chevalier's alleged desire 'to keep the bloodlines pure.'" I have repeatedly removed this content because the source does not say he supports her, and no RS has ever claimed she said anything about bloodlines. This specific claim seems to be against WP:BLPSELFPUB because it includes statements about a third party and uses weasel words like MOS:ALLEGED. WP:BLPREMOVE says these removals are exempt from the 3RR, but still suggests raising the matter here. Edittttor (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Donny Osmond

Very final paragraph is cited from unsubstantiated tabloid journalism. Uses derogatory inflamatory and unexplained language, such as calling Donny Osmond "perverse" with no reasons or facts offered. Perhaps, this final paragraph should be truncated to simply say in neutral language that in the 1980s and 90s he became disillusioned with performing in the music industry and sought therapy and medication to address panic attacks, which he has continually stated in his book and many interviews and is common public knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-38870-22 (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree, and removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

wow! Impressive!! So speedy!! Responsible journalism at work!! This is why wikipedia is trusted and valuable. Thanks for your volunteer efforts and contribution. ~2026-38870-22 (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Ritchie333, the inappropriate content has been restored by its original author, SugaShikaoFans, in a different spot. Special:Diff/1363311891. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@SugaShikaoFans: would you like to explain yourself? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came in such way. If there is another way to express that information, I am open to accept my error. As I read it in the post from which I took the information, it seemed that that is how Osmond acted in reference to his attitude towards his "old self". I will not add it again. I again apologize if I added the information that caused the misunderstanding. SugaShikaoFans (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Rodney Alejandro

Rodney Alejandro Bio is clearly copy/pasted from his own website or self written — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-38675-56 (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Which is it? From his website or self written? Those are two different things that would need to be handled very differently. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It does seem to be the case that the original article was written by the subject [17] [18] Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like plenty of refs that have urls to nothing and also nothing related. I can get to this after dinner. JFHJr (㊟) 00:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

i did a read through earlier and it seemed like a whole bunch of session and cowriting credits. as a musician i am very impressed, its a great cv! As a encyclopedia-writer i have significant concerns. Morwen (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Half the cites depended not on textual mention of any depth at all or of any quality at all, but single line credits. Those aren't even passing mention since they're just (collapsed) list entries, not textual mentions. The other half of the cites were either coverage of third parties or somehow failed WP:V. I removed them. The article now has zero references because that's not how we use references. I'm done for now but happy to watch. JFHJr (㊟) 02:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I've stubbified it. Morwen (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Keiko Fujimori

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:NatGertler, you think it's fine to hide sourced information to support a falsehood?[19] Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David E Kaplan

David E Kaplan (author) should be listed as David E Kaplan (journalist and author) since this was his main occupation during his career. Also the link to the International Press Freedom Laureates should be removed at the bottom of his bio since it leads to a different journalist named David Kaplan who was killed in Bosnia in 1982. Thanks you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kaplan_(producer)

William Kistner

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfkistner (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the erroneous navbox. Re the article title, I don't see that "(journalist and author)" is a better disambiguation – more concise is generally better here. Perhaps David E. Kaplan (journalist) would be better than David E. Kaplan (author); if you think so then WP:RM explains how to request that an article be moved to a different title. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion re climate change deniers

May be of interest to WP:BLPN: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Lack of climate change denialist categories — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Ramesh R. Rao

Needs eyes and revdeletion of allegations of criminal conduct sourced to SPS. Jfire (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Müllerian agenesis

The concerns described by (canvassed) participants of the discussion at Talk:Müllerian agenesis may be worth being evaluated from a WP:BLP-focused perspective by uninvolved editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

For_Women_Scotland

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Women_Scotland&diff=next&oldid=1363823906

The primary source (Amnesty) has officially withdrawn the document from their own platform for review following legal/defamation complaints, making it an unreliable snapshot that cannot be kept live in "Wikivoice"—even if framed via secondary press reports of the initial launch.

This violates of WP:BLP (due to the direct impact on the reputation of the living founders/directors) and WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View), as "anti-rights group" is a political statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattymmoo (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Not a BLP issue per WP:BLPGROUP. FDW777 (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Cullen Douglas – Unsourced legal name and stage name in opening sentence

I am the subject of the article Cullen Douglas and have disclosed my conflict of interest on the article's Talk page. I'm requesting review under the Biographies of Living Persons policy because the opening sentence currently states: "Douglas Cullen Baumbach (born November 6, 1967), better known by his stage name Cullen Douglas..." This information is unsourced. The birth name and the assertion that "Cullen Douglas" is a stage name have no citation to a reliable published source. "Cullen Douglas" has been my legal name for more than 30 years. I have requested on the article Talk page that an uninvolved editor replace the opening with: "Cullen Douglas (born November 6, 1967) is an American actor, playwright, and screenwriter." Because this is an unsourced statement in a biography of a living person that is being repeated by search engines, I'd appreciate review by an uninvolved editor. Thank you. ~2026-37507-79 (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

sorted. I've also removed a few other things that shouldn't have been added without a source. Morwen (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I ran across a Florida Today article that could be used for birth and stage name, but I don't know if it's truly reliable, so I didn't add it to the article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Rachel Bitecofer

Hello, I started a discussion here concerning a possible violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB in this article. I would welcome additional feedback over on the talk page of the article. Thank you! Yojo98 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Nina Lath Gupta — fabricated criminal conviction, unsourced defamatory content still live

The article Nina Lath Gupta contains a fabricated statement claiming the Supreme Court of India fined and sentenced the subject. No such court order exists. The only relevant Supreme Court orders — SLP(C) No. 16902/2024 and Review Petition (C) No. 1822/2024 — dismissed the Union of India's appeal and are already cited in the article.

The defamatory content was inserted on 14 May 2026 by temporary account ~2026-28903-36 (+174 bytes). Further vandalism was added 13 June 2026 by ~2026-34786-74 (+126 bytes). A partial revert on 30 June by Ravensfire removed only the June edit, leaving the May fabrication live.

Additional issues from the same vandalism pattern: "NFDC" changed to "NDFC" throughout, "Delhi High Court" changed to "Dehli Hight Court."

A COI edit request was filed on the Talk page on 12 July 2026. VRT report, oversight suppression request, and semi-protection request have also been filed. No action has been taken in two days. Requesting urgent removal of unsourced defamatory content per WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39243-31 (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the fabricated content. Two minor corrections still remain:

1. "NDFC" should be "NFDC" in two instances (correct name: National Film Development Corporation).

2. "Dehli Hight Court" should be "Delhi High Court". ~2026-39243-31 (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Correction to my previous reply: the NFDC/NDFC issue appears to have been fixed already. The only remaining issue is "Dehli Hight Court" which should be "Delhi High Court."

Thank you. ~2026-39243-31 (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Jellinek

[20]

No source provided. Web search results could be interpreted as supporting, but no WP:RS that I could find. Article was not moved, and no visible request to do so. How do we handle this?

~2026-37915-52 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Like Elliot Page, I guess, since they were notable under both names. A 2026 Playbill entry for Lee lists Laura's Tony nomination for Oklahoma, so I'd call that confirmed, not just supporting. Lael seems to be another name we might want to include. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and move to Lee in a bit. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Since I don't know what qualifies as RS in this topic area, I'm happy for you to take the lead. ~2026-37915-52 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a bit iffy. Strictly speaking, it's synthesis to draw lines like I did above, but as a BLP, it's Very Not Good to leave it under the wrong name. Better to let an admin get yelled at than getting blocked yourself. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Their website definitely seems to suggest they are now called Lee and using he/him pronounds. FDW777 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, Brown grad? *tappity tappity tap* Yup, alumni directory confirms the connection as well. I'll go ahead and move, but will leave the exact wording to someone else. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll just leave this note here that the proposal to mention Laura and Lael has not been implemented. Sarek's suggestion that this case is analogous with Elliot Page seems accurate to me: The subject has clearly been notable as Laura, unsure about Lael. ~2026-37915-52 (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer to leave the exact phrasing to someone else, as I might not be sensitive enough to nuances. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Mel Hardin

Mel Hardin of the group Mel and Tim is not deceased. He is married to Karen Hardin and has a 40 year old son name Chris Hardin. Mel resides in Florissant, Mo in St. Louis County. He is currently in the hospital fighting for his life as of today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39697-10 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the death since I could not confirm this on a reliable source search. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Nigel Biggar

Nigel Biggar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article describes Biggar, in the first sentence of the Career section, as taking a role as a librarian and research fellow at Latimer House. It then describes the nature of Latimer House in a way that may confuse the reader into thinking the article is referring to the American term, especially if the reader does not follow the link to Conservative evangelicalism in the United Kingdom. My understanding is that the two terms are of very different sorts of evangelicism. The implication is that the misdescribed Latimer House transfers to the article subject. Hence, the piped link misleads the reader in a way that WP:BLP seeks to avoid. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the argument that some hypothetical person potentially misinterpreting an accurate description is a BLP violation. We shouldn't be needlessly confusing to readers, but when there's an accurate technical term we shouldn't avoid it just in case some hypothetical person misunderstands it. If such a description is demonstrably causing major confusion then we should consider if there is a clearer way of phrasing it, but currently the confusion seems to be entirely hypothetical. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

This[21] might be an example of someone misunderstanding this point (the addition of the words 'conservative evangelical'; the other alteration is appropriate).

Since Biggar is quite approachable, I asked him (by e-mail) if it was fair for Wikipedia to infer that he is a conservative evangelical. (He might have said 'yes'.) He replied 'I was more evangelical and somewhat more socially conservative in 1985 than I am now. Although, I am somewhat both now, to describe me as a 'conservative evangelical' would mislead.'

I appreciate this matter is much less obvious than many of the cases dealt with here, but it seems wrong to me. There must be other instances where something that a reader might reasonably infer from the construction of an article would have more serious results.

And I reiterate the difference between the meaning of the term in the USA versus the Church of England. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

While I am also struggling to see that there's a major problem here, the solution is simple: just take out the description after Latimer House, since the wikilink is sufficient. So I have done this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Juan Branco

COI disclosure: I am affiliated with Les Ruches, the movement supporting Juan Branco's 2027 presidential candidacy. I have stopped editing the article directly and am requesting independent review. I first raised the issue at Talk:Juan Branco#BLP attribution and the on-wiki record of the Wikipedia dispute and have now added a source-and-history audit there.

The narrow BLP issue is that the article currently states, in Wikipedia's voice, that “Branco has used multiple identities (sockpuppets) since 2005 to embellish his own biography on Wikipedia and to settle accounts with others.” The cited basis is a 2020 Le Figaro allegation. Branco's published denial is mentioned later, but the lead assertion remains categorical.

The on-wiki record is not categorical. The March–April 2020 SPI noted possible connections but closed without being convinced (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brancojuan/Archive#30 March 2020). A separate August 2023 SPI found the Neo Trixma account technically “possible” and the behavioural evidence sufficient to block that account (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brancojuan/Archive#22 August 2023). Those are different outcomes and neither, by itself, permits every account-level inference to be stated as a proven real-world identity.

The disputed English wording was introduced at Special:Diff/943222267. Later reverts repeatedly asserted identity without a corresponding finding, including Special:Diff/948570037, Special:Diff/990472699, and Special:Diff/1111542856. I am linking the diffs rather than repeating further BLP-sensitive material here.

Would uninvolved editors please review whether the sentence should be narrowly attributed, for example: “In 2020, Le Figaro reported that Branco had used multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia articles about himself and other people; Branco denied using Wikipedia to attack others and said that he had contributed under a pseudonym linked to his identity.” The email allegation can remain separately attributed to L’Express. I am not asking for criticism to be removed, only for the article to distinguish a press allegation, the subject's response, and the exact results of Wikipedia's account investigations under WP:BLP, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:DUE. OrmeClair857801 (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple sources confirming this.

https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/sur-wikipedia-la-biographie-sur-mesure-de-juan-branco-21-02-2020-2363896_23.php

https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/sur-wikipedia-les-vies-revees-de-juan-branco-20200221

Apparently this was also investigated and confirmed in 2017 by wikimedia administrators :

« Il est connu et référencé comme un utilisateur très présent, teigneux, et qui embellit sa page en détournant les règles à son avantage », confirme au quotidien Samuel Le Goff, qui fut président de l'association Wikimedia France en 2017.

Translate :

"He is known and referenced as a very active, tenacious user who embellishes his page by bending the rules to his advantage," Samuel Le Goff, who was president of the Wikimedia France association in 2017, confirmed to the daily newspaper. Ebtpmus (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

David Haigh

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

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

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

Thank you for looking at this — I'll keep it brief here and have consolidated everything in one place at

Talk:David Haigh#Consolidated response and requested corrections (from the article subject).

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

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

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

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

High school dropouts in the United States#Notable dropouts

High_school_dropouts_in_the_United_States#Notable_dropouts has extremely defamatory claims made about several living persons (ie that they're high school dropouts) which are/is unsourced. 781h (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

So.....remove them? 331dot (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Are these claims cited in the respective biographical articles? Left guide (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Any entry in that list on a living person should have a WP:BLP-good ref. If there is one in the main article, fine, but "delete first and ask questions later" is fine here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)