Talk:J.John

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Ioannou[edit]

Is John Ioannou an actor, or is he actually J.John, this article?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC) John Ioannou and J.John are not the same person. SRinMiltonK (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Pilavachi[edit]

@Tinihere: I am confused as to which part of WP:BLPREMOVE you feel applies to this sentence. If you don't like Premier Christian News as a source, J.John's comments and the backlash were also mentioned twice in The Telegraph, which is generally considered reliable per WP:RSN (1, 2). It's not original analysis or synthesis, it's not a self-published source, and it verifies fine. What is the policy case for removing this sentence? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinihere - without a response, I'm planning to restore the sentence tomorrow. If you object, please do come here to discuss so we can figure out consensus. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811 - References connecting people to controversial personalities should be primary. This claim is contentious and should stay removed unless we use J.John's original comment as a reference. See WP:BLP 2nd & 3rd paragraph. Tinihere (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any indication that we require or encourage primary sources for controversial statements. In fact, WP:BLP explicitly warns us against using primary sources. Nothing in that sentence violates the second or third paragraphs of WP:BLP. It states that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" - we have that. This is not poorly sourced material, nor is it irrelevant. The sentence does not sensationalize or mislead. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinihere, any response to this? —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]