Talk:Jameela Jamil

Cancer's so nice we mention it twice
As much a note to myself as to anyone else: I've just noticed that the talk about Jamil's alleged inconsistencies in having cancer scares appears to be duplicated. I see the "...common and scary" quote in two places. I can't take time to fix this now, so if I don't get to it, somebody (anybody) else is more than welcome to weed out that thicket. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal life
I commented out most of her Personal Life section because it was just a blow-by-blow of her various lies and exaggerations. This is what mental illness looks like. It should be described in a more sensitive way, no matter how annoying this lady is, because she clearly needs intensive help. So if there are articles in reliable sources saying she's been accused of being a liar, then that should be just a summary of what she's said (ie, "She's been accused of exaggerating or fabricating details of her health and personal life...) —МандичкаYO 😜 17:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * well, clearly the personal life is giving off the wrong vibe. My understanding is that there's no proof that anything she has said is a "lie or exaggeration". The only source we have even suggesting Jamil has fabricated anything is a Yahoo source that mentions that some random person on Instagram accused Jamil of lying.
 * Believe it or not, the section has said much worse things in the past, but I've received pushback when trying to improve it, and looking at it again it's a lot worse than I realised. I think some of the content is important, such as her description of sexual violence she has suffered. The bees paragraph is complete garbage, a synthesis conspiracy theory based on primary sources. The Murs and cancer paragraphs are similarly trying to construct some grand fabrication. We can surely rewrite to just briefly say that she was injured in the Murs incident and has suffered from Hashimoto's thyroiditis and cancer, and scrap the bees stuff altogether. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response . I'm not invested in this page but came across it and was a bit shocked. The Personal Life section was basically the same content as the Instagram Jameela Truther who documents everything she's said, but written in Wiki style with citations. I feel like it needs to be addressed in some way but if so I think it should be a separate section related to her activism, because it's problematic, but the blow-by-blow of every one of her changing stories is totally unnecessary. It's a touchy subject because she's an activist so her credibility is relevant in THOSE areas, but it should also respect WP:BLP. The way it was written was just a hodgepodge of comparing her changing stories about mostly irrelevant things. She's not a politician so I don't see the point in just documenting lies to take part in the mockery (which seems to be plentiful elsewhere) of someone who clearly got issues. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now made the suggestions I outlined above, in this edit. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I and others have spent a lot of time editing this article to make it BLP-compliant. Everything stated has been extensively sourced with reliable secondary sources from publications (as well as to a lesser extent primary sources - interviews and videos). Not once has it been stated in the article that the subject is lying and no inferences have been made that are not supported by the sources or self-evident within them.
 * If you draw conclusions that the subject is lying, that is your inference from the sources provided and is in no way implied by the article itself. It has already been agreed in the discussion above that using 'she states' is a NPOV of describing what the subject has said about herself (as this is documented to have been challenged as untruthful) without making a judgement one way or the other as to a whether or not it actually is untruthful.
 * As you have not commented on which of the paragraphs in the article you believe not to be supported by the sources, I am reverting the article to its stable state prior to your edits. Please kindly comment on which paragraphs you believe to be unsupported by the sources rather than simply deleting carefully and extensively sourced information unilaterally. An opinion that the article is 'giving off the wrong vibe' is entirely subjective and not a reason to delete sourced information.
 * Everything that has been included in the article is relevant and pertinent to the subject's personal life, in as much as it has been discussed at inordinate length by her and commented on extensively by secondary sources. The paragraph about bees for example is not a 'conspiracy'; it is entirely drawn from statements she has made and the reporting of them by secondary sources. SHE clearly feels that her supposed repeated negative encounters combining bees and vehicles is notable, and I would be inclined to agree as this is repeated combination of events is highly unusual. Uakari (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Count me as another vote for Bilorv/Wikimandia's preferred version. The section as it now exists is shocking and not BLP compliant, as previously noted.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Uakari, the burden is on you to discuss how you believe the disputed content complies with BLP and get consensus before reinstating per WP:BLPUNDEL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if those who want to delete the sourced information actually explain the specific words or sources they are objecting to so we can discuss these, rather than simply wholesale deleting and using emotive language like 'shocking' or 'giving off the wrong vibe'. I have already explained that the article as a whole is BLP-compliant because it discusses matters pertinent to the subject's personal life based on what is notable, in that she herself has discussed these matters and they have been publicised extensively in the media. Everything is backed up by reliable sources, often multiple ones, and the article makes no judgement either way on the veracity of the subject's statements. The wording chosen by Bilorv goes against the consensus already established in the discussion above, that we use 'she states' or similar when discussing the subject's statements about herself. Bilorv's edit also contains inaccuracies such as describing the alleged incidents on London Undergound escalators as 'one incident' whereas the subject describes the same scenario happening on three separate occasions with three separate men. Have you considered that the reason some may consider the article in its stable version to be 'shocking' is that it accurately summarises statements by the subject that may be seen as shocking or outlandish themselves, especially in terms of their numerousness and allegedly contradictory nature? We must be careful also not to take a POV that everything the subject says about herself can be taken as fact, when this has been challenged and is also diffino cult to reconcile with what is shown in the primary sources (videos and TV interviews). Wikipedia also does not exist to write 'sensitively' about a particular person: we write what is supported by the sources, as the stable version does. Specifically in regard to the use of the Daily Mirror as a source, please can you explain why you believe this to be unreliable in this context, given that it is simply a published interview with the subject herself? I also notice that their has been a bias in what has been deleted towards deleting content published by me, and tending towards leaving content published by other editors intact. This is despite a similar level and quality of sourcing used for both. I would question therefore whether these deletions have been done in good faith rather than simply being a crude exercise in mass-deletion of one user's edits without evaluating their individual merit. I would ask for specific explanations as to why those deleting the content consider each separate part of it to be non BLP-compliant, rather than simply because you interpret it as somehow showing the subject in a less than positive light. Uakari (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully suggest having a quick look at WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN. No matter how good you think your own arguments are, an article is not BLIP-compliant if consensus disagrees.  The way the sources and descriptions are layered here, to me, creates an impression that is not directly stated in any of the sources; it strikes me as an especially subtle level of WP:SYNTH.  Now, perhaps consensus was once had in your favor, but consensus can change.  At this point it seems like the head count is basically four to one, which strikes me as enough to make the contemplated changes.  Then again, reasonable minds may differ.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bilorv's edit also contains inaccuracies such as describing the alleged incidents on London Undergound escalators as 'one incident' whereas the subject describes the same scenario happening on three separate occasions with three separate men. This is a simple typo that I have now corrected, and obviously not a substantive basis to oppose a version of the article. The wording chosen by Bilorv goes against the consensus already established in the discussion above, that we use 'she states' or similar when discussing the subject's statements about herself. What "discussion above" establishes such consensus? This is not done in other articles. It is exceptionally rare that such comments are written with "she states" because it is not necessary per WP:ABOUTSELF and insinuates BLP-violating claims. You need a reliable source that says in their own words that something is of dubious veracity to break this general rule. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC):
 * There is nothing contrary to BLP in writing "she states": I might personally prefer "she has stated", but either way this is a neutral phrasing and a simple statement of fact, properly cited. We could go to the bother of having an RFC on the point, but that seems pretty pointless. I have read the preceding comments though, and I can see they are well meant, but in my view the version prior to 14 November is (i) BLP compliant, (ii) more thorough and (iii) preferable. –   Tim riley  talk   08:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I’m trying to fathom how reporting the words of someone preceded by “she states/stated” is a BLP violation. As with all BLP articles these have to be tied to reliable sources, but reporting direct statements by an article’s subject is well within the letter and spirit of the BLP policy. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9CAB:1373:3FCE:602D (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the additional comments that have been made, it seems there is in fact no consensus to delete the sourced information and wording as per the version prior to 14 November (bearing in mind WP:NOTAVOTE). The current version still contains the inaccuracies I highlighted (eg describing a single incident on the London Underground whereas the subject describes three separate incidents), and the point about a reduction in thoroughness is well made (the removal of any discuss of allegations of fabrication by the subject that were much more reported on than some of the other information that remains in the article, for example). Again, no one objecting to the previous version has actually discussed specific wording or sources that they dislike, so I can only repeat that everything that was mentioned in the previous version was either reported by multiple secondary sources, stated by the subject herself and reported in secondary sources, or self-evident in primary sources, and is pertinent to her personal life. I have no objection to changing the tense of "she states" to "she has stated" if this would make the article read better. Uakari (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ... she was sexually assaulted on the London Underground in one incident, dragged into a car by a stranger in another, and experienced other sexual violence is unambiguously a description of multiple incidents. You do not have consensus for your proposed text; no-one is saying this is a vote, but you cannot simply discount the voices of people you disagree with because you refuse to read them or want to misrepresent their contents. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right that we are not voting here, but a lone dissenting voice is not an impediment to consensus. This looks like consensus to me.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from the three people who disagree with the other four, that is. A curious idea of consensus.  Tim riley  talk   20:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see two, now, but so it goes! Dumuzid (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bilorv: It seems that you are not reading the sources: The subject describes in that interview three separate men ejaculating on her leg on escalators on the London Underground on three separate occasions, *in addition* to the incident she describes in Oxford Street and the incident she describes about being dragged into a car. As you well know, I am not trying to gain 'consensus for proposed text'; I am objecting to your unexplained removal of multiple sourced paragraphs on 14 November (that had been live for months if not years) and replacement with your own inaccurate and highly truncated version, in response to a single query that did not even call for this. As you can now see, three separate users have disagreed with this unexplained removal and replacement of sourced content, so in fact consensus has not been established to remove and replace the content from the version prior to 14 November. Additionally, the first user posting in this section has not endorsed your replacement text either, remarking that the allegations that the subject has falsified information about her life should still 'be addressed in some way', rather than completely deleted as you have done. Uakari (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good god, there's no clearer sign of someone seeing a discussion as a point-scoring activity than when they vaguely allude to someone making a mistake three times and at no point decide to just correct it. I read both of the sources verifying this particular sentence. But I make small mistakes, as does everyone. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As you have a track record in deleting sourced text written by me on this article, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to engage with the subject more closely as I have done, and correct your own mistake. Besides, as no consensus has been established for your deletion and replacement of the text I spent many hours exhaustively researching and sourcing, the next reasonable step is for you to revert the article to the version prior to 14 November, in which case your inaccurate reading of the sources will be corrected anyway. Uakari (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There certainly doesn't seem to be consensus right now, but I would respectfully suggest that at this point per WP:ONUS and WP:BLP, it falls to those who want the debated text in the article to reach consensus. As ever, just the way I see it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But no one has actually spelled out which specific content they are 'disputing' and why they are disputing it as per verifiability or any Wikipedia rules. As far as I have read, all the objections so far amount to wanting to write more 'sensitively' about the subject or that anything that somehow shows her in a less than positive light should be avoided, or else subjectively inferring that the content has some kind of editorial slant beyond reporting what is notable and reliably sourced about the subject's personal life. I've yet to hear a specific objection to a specific sentence that was removed. It's a big stretch to interpret WP:ONUS to mean that someone can come along and delete whole swathes of sourced factual content because they've decided they 'dispute' it in the vaguest of terms, then say that the onus is on the author of the content they deleted to reach consensus to restore it. Otherwise someone could decide they dispute any factual text in any article (flat-eathers, etc) and the onus would be on the person who wrote and sourced that the earth was spherical to achieve consensus for this. The end result of that would be that we would not have an encyclopedia at all, because someone will always 'dispute' something if the only thing that 'dispute' means is that you don't like or don't want to believe what has been verified. Uakari (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I forgot that verifiability guarantees inclusion. My mistake.  Have a nice day.  Dumuzid (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unclear why you feel sarcasm is warranted here, especially as I did not say anything about verifiability guaranteeing inclusion. I was using verifiability grounds as an example of why someone might reasonably 'dispute' content. Please feel free to elucidate what particular sentences or sources in the deleted content you are disputing and why as per the Wikipedia rules. It is not logical to ask me to gain consensus for content that has been live for many months, when the specific nature of the dispute has not been made clear and a generalised sense of objection seems to be the only thing that has been expressed. Uakari (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly apologize if you felt the sarcasm was disrespectful, but I thought it did a fair job of proving my point: that you seem to lean heavily on verifiability, which is good, but not the only concern. Again, I feel like the citations are layered here in such a way, along with a healthy dose of sort of WP:WEASEL-adjacent phrases that give the impression that the subject is a habitual liar (I don't know one way or the other!), but it seems like a sort of whole-article WP:SYNTH issue.  I have concerns that not everything here is WP:DUE and that it could be presented more neutrally.  I am trying to take a look to provide some good concrete suggestions as to how.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When you're looking through the pre-14 Nov version, I would be grateful if you could take the time to actually read every single source, including watching the Hardtalk interview, the Fashion Targets Breast Cancer segment and the three consecutive YouTube videos of the Orange Rockcorps incident, as I did when I spent many hours researching the content that was then wholesale deleted by Bilrov. Perhaps then you will understand why I am saying that the objections are not actually due to the content itself, but what the sources reveal, such as someone saying they have broken their elbow and then being shown on video minutes later pushing a wheelbarrow and engaged in construction work, that they have held in a broken tooth with eyelash adhesive for over a decade, or being contradictory about the timeline and nature of breast cancer-related experiences. The real issue here is that some people are fond of the subject (which is fair enough as even slightly well-known people attract fans), but that means they have a very strong POV when it comes to really reading (or NOT really reading) what she has actually said about herself, and when it comes to the inclusion of the very notable and widely-reported allegations that this is fabricated or exaggerated in several areas. Uakari (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you put a lot of work into this, and I don't mean to discount that. And I can tell you I have no particular feelings toward this article subject one way or the other.  Again, my worry is largely WP:SYNTH -- in your example, while it's certainly notable on a personal level that someone who claims to have a broken elbow might be seen engaged in construction work, my take on Wikipedia policy is that we shouldn't be hanging a lantern on that fact (so to speak) unless the reliable sources do.  The article as currently constructed feels like it edges over into innuendo which is not explicitly stated in the sources.  While I think that innuendo is well-founded in a personal opinion sense, for me, it's either right up to the BLP line, or, for my money, just over.  As ever, if consensus is against me, I will not complain.  Cheers, and happy Monday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As you say, I did put a lot of work into it (although other editors also contributed to some of the parts that have been deleted) and was careful to read and watch every source completely. This is why it is quite frustrating when certain editors then engage in wholesale delete and replace, without actually carefully studying the text they are deleting and the sources it draws from (seeming to concentrate on their impression of the 'vibe' of an article section rather than what it actually discusses). This appears to me to betray a bias towards believing the subject no matter what the sources show, or wanting to show her in a positive light rather than describing what is actually supported by the sources. As even the first poster above mentioned, the allegations of fabrication are doubtless notable and need to be discussed in some way, and that necessitates discussing the allergies statements in particular. I think the discussions of cancer-related experiences need to be presented in a more NPOV way than the current version (given the inconsistencies that are revealed by the sources). The same goes for the Orange Rockcorps incident because of what the videos actually show. This is why 'she states/stated' is apt, making no judgement either way. The bee/car-related incidents paragraph is notable because it is something unusual that the subject has brought up repeatedly, with a high-profile person present for one of the incidents contradicting her version - there is no 'conspiracy' here. As you say that you have a neutral POV regarding the subject (as I would argue I do also), would you be kind enough to study the pre-14 Nov version and the sources cited, and perhaps we can have a discussion on here as to how to get a consensus for the tone/totality, without losing the specific detail that has been deleted? 19:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uakari (talk • contribs)

I will certainly have a look at the sources, but I am still concerned that good and valid sources can sometimes lead to a troubling result. If we say "Dumuzid told the Daily Bugle he had a broken leg on Monday, but the Daily Planet had pictures of him skiing on Wednesday," juxtaposing the sources in that manner, even if both are valid, would represent (as ever, to me) an unjustifiable synthesis of information. Even though it's a fairly short putt, as my grandfather would say, we shouldn't arrange the sources to make it look like I am lying or to be doubted unless one or both says that for themselves. And it feels to me (again, not in and of itself a basis for change) like this article stretches the idea of WP:DUE to end up in that kind of place. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But by the same token, we can't just report what the subject says about this incident as fact as the replacement text does (by omitting 'she states' and removing the links to the totality of the videos), when the sources are telling us something different. That's also taking a POV editorial slant. So then we are left with having to leave out or avoid mentioning certain information altogether, which is also not NPOV. As I would also agree with first poster that the allegations of fabrication are notable and should be discussed, we then at least need to include some of the incidents/aspects to which these allegations pertain (because clearly they were not simply dreamed up with no evidence provided). The tricky part is how to include them without either denying the verifiable evidence before us, or being seen to make a judgment on the allegations ourselves. If the evidence indeed shows that the subject has contradicted herself or been contradicted by others (cancer/related timelines/nature, bees, allergies, model work), shows something contrary to what the subject has said (Orange Rockcorps), or stretches reasonable credibility (eyelash glue/tooth), then do we not have a duty to present this information with a neutral point of view? This is why I continue to request that those who object to the previous version really study the subject's statements and how these relate to the sources before diving in with a visceral reaction (particularly study the Hardtalk interview, Fashion Targets Breast Cancer segment, all three Orange Rockcorps videos and Mark Ronson's statement). Uakari (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If the evidence indeed shows that the subject has contradicted herself or been contradicted by others (cancer/related timelines/nature, bees, allergies, model work), shows something contrary to what the subject has said (Orange Rockcorps), or stretches reasonable credibility (eyelash glue/tooth), then do we not have a duty to present this information with a neutral point of view? - to this I would respond that our duty is to present it in line and proportionally with how it is represented in the reliable sources. It is most certainly not our job at Wikipedia to identify contradictions and then highlight them in the article.  For one example--the bit about mercury poisoning from fillings--it's certainly a weird anecdote and gives me all sorts of pause.  But it does not seem to me WP:DUE for the level of prominence it currently has in the article.  It seems like a random aside which wasn't really picked up on by any sources (it almost seems like both cited sources are using the same interview?).  Now, if we had an article headlined "JJ says crazy thing about dentistry," it would absolutely belong there.  As it stands, I am not sure.  Dumuzid (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the version before November 14, much of the personal life section was original research. I get that a lot of research time went into drafting it, but we should be reporting what's covered by secondary sources, as noted by many above. That said, some of the content was cited to secondary sources, and could be reincluded with due weight as shown by coverage in LA Times, NZ Herald, Slate, and (maybe?) Refinery29. It's likely the new version of this content would look very different. Firefangledfeathers 03:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please can you explain which parts of the pre-14 November version you consider to be 'original research' and why? Are you saying you consider the use of primary sources to be 'original research'? Is the Hardtalk interview actually not a secondary source, given the subject is being interviewed about herself? Do you have specific suggestions about how to reintroduce the deleted content/sources in a different way? As I and others have objected to the replacement truncated version, can we now have a discussion about the individual sections of the pre-14 Nov version and how to express the information and sources in a way that can gain consensus? I think we should focus on the specific sentences now rather than making general comments that aren't really getting us further towards consensus. This of course involves those who want to contribute engaging sufficiently and reading and watching every source that has been deleted from the article. I think once people have done that, there may be less of a 'synth' concern and a greater realisation that the sources are indeed speaking for themselves rather than the text 'reaching or implying a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves'. Uakari (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's some textbook original research, specifically, "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources":


 * I'd suggest that you have the specifics reversed. Having had your good-faith contributions reverted for good-faith reasons, the onus is on you to build consensus for inclusion. Rather than asking objectors for specifics, how about proposing a draft of the most reliably sourced sections first? Firefangledfeathers 13:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're asking me to blindly guess which parts are acceptable to the objectors and which parts are not. Also, I believe all the sources I used are reliable in the context I used them: For example a user objected to the use of the 'Daily Mirror' as a source, but there is no ban on using this publication and the source was simply an interview with the subject herself, which is hardly likely to be unreliable as she has not ever said she was misquoted in it. My contributions were not 'reverted'; Bilorv removed most of the 'personal life' section that had been live for months and replaced it with his own truncated version, which I and others above have disputed on the grounds of inaccuracy, loss of notable content (eg not referring to the allegations of fabrication at all) and other POV (removing 'she states' from particular comments the subject has made about herself to make these appear to be undisputed fact when they are in fact disputed and also contradicted in the sources, including by the subject herself particularly when it comes to cancer/cancer scares/pre-cancerous cells and the timelines). So surely he also needs to gain consensus for his version, which is disputed too? Or shall we just reduce the personal life section to a stump? We can't reasonably include any reference to the Orange Rockcorps incident that takes the subject's own description of the incident as fact and does not show/describe what is actually on video as happening, without being POV. I would question whether the removal of content has been done in 'good faith'. I had assumed so at first, but with various users who have not contributed themselves to the article coming out of the woodwork to object to content that has been live for months, at a time when the subject is about to appear in a new television show, does strike me as potentially more than a coincidence. Can you explain how the paragraph you quoted 'reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources' when it simply describes what is shown and self-evident in the YouTube videos? Are you saying no primary sources can be used in articles about living persons, even just to describe what is self-evident in the source? The replacement version is POV because it describes the subject's statements about the incident as if they were fact, rather than what is self-evident from watching the videos (that she was pushing a wheelbarrow and building a coat rack after the incident where she states she received multiple injuries). For this section, it could be argued that the incident is not particularly notable in itself, but gains notability in terms of Tracie Morrissey's allegations. So would this wording, for example, be more appropriate?:

"Morrissey cited allegedly contradictory public statements made by Jamil about specific health issues, accidents and injuries, including those discussed above such as cancer and cancer scares, bee-related car accidents/incidents, whether or not she worked as a model, and injuries sustained through accidents, and accused Jamil of falsifying or exaggerating these claims. For example, Jamil stated that she lost a tooth, smashed her nose, broke her elbow and several ribs, and got a concussion when she slipped and fell on her face while running around the set with Olly Murs at a recorded event leading up to the pair acting as presenters at the Orange Rockcorps volunteers' London concert of September 2010. Morrissey cited footage shot shortly after this incident shows Jamil completing various challenges for the event, including pushing a wheelbarrow full of woodchips and helping to build a coat rack.[122][123]"

That way were are reporting on Morrissey's research and can link to where her research has been reported, and direct links to the YouTube videos will be in the context of that reporting. How about that? Uakari (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No coincidence. Since you weren't aware, the issues were reported to the BLP Noticeboard a couple of days ago to draw in uninvolved editors. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am consciously not responding to the parts of your comment that are about conduct concerns. Feel free to pursue WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE resolution methods, but this isn't the place for it. I'll think about your proposal and respond later. Could you clarify which sources would be cited? Firefangledfeathers 17:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Tracie Morrisey's Instagram does not strike me as a reliable source and I don't think our article should "respond" to it in any way. Now, it's possible that I am wrong and people will find it such, but I would suggest that the onus is on you to show that an instagram account can be used for such a purpose.  As ever, just the way I see it.  And if you doubt my good faith, by all means, follow up in whatever way you think appropriate. Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing then that I never suggested citing Tracie Morrissey's Instagram and it was never cited in the article; I'm taking about citing the reporting of the allegations. To answer the question about which sources to use for the discussion of the allegations of fabrication regarding the Olly Murs/Orange Rockcorps incident in particular, I would suggest referring to the specific allegations and citing the following sources specifically:

https://thetab.com/uk/2020/02/13/jameela-jamil-munchausen-syndrome-instagram-user-143903

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/actor-jameela-jamil-slams-unhinged-online-conspiracies-about-her/news-story/1e4a00fab5a03835a7bbe9fa30093972

And then additionally citing the three YouTube videos of the actual incident in such a way that makes clear in which order they were filmed. Apart from in the context of the allegations of fabrication, the incident itself is not particularly notable, so probably should not be included otherwise (how it is presented in the current version seems to verge on WP:TRIVIA). The risk is that we end up with a stub, where only the first and last paragraphs in the 'personal life' section have any kind of consensus for inclusion. Uakari (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I would definitely not personally consider The Tab to be reliable for a claim like this; you can also see here for a recent brief discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: . As for the other source, I confess, I get my Australian news outlets a bit muddled, but I am looking into it.  I will say this remains a major WP:DUE red flag in my opinion. Dumuzid (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * news.com.au also looks troublesome, although I didn't find a straight non-reliable/deprecation type entry in my quick research. If you don't mind, I'd like to bring this to the reliable sources noticeboard for some outside opinions? Dumuzid (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's all WP:NOTGOSSIP to me. My objections to the WP:DAILYMIRROR citation is not that the interview is unreliable but that the topics that can only be sourced to them are WP:UNDUE. For WP:PUBLICFIGURES, we should only be reporting material, especially negative, that can be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources like The Guardian or Independent. If her personal life section is two paragraphs, so be it. BLPs are to be written conservatively, not report everything that she says (and reaction) because she can't "filter". Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of the sources I mentioned have actually been deprecated, so you have to look at the individual article and decide from that. Both these articles are simply reporting what Tracie Morrissey published. One look at her Instagram story will show you that they are reporting what she published accurately. So what's the issue? I find this is often an issue with American editors being unfamiliar with sources outside their own country, and tending to err on the side of discounting an entire source they are not familiar with or making highly questionable judgements such as viewing the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror as similar, when they couldn't be further apart editorially. I'm sure you can find a US source that reports the allegations similarly, if you really want to cite that instead. There is a citation in the previous version from the Independent, but you will usually find that the Guardian and the Independent don't focus much on minor celebrities, so you won't get many sources from them. That isn't to say that those publications that do are indulging in 'gossip' themselves rather than simply reporting allegations that meet notability criteria in terms of the subject's personal life. They and we are not creating gossip in this case. We can't possibly say that these allegations not notable in terms of the subject's personal life, when a simple Google search for her name has three articles of the first page about the allegations and a photograph of her is one of the first default images when searching 'Munchausen syndrome'. Uakari (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My issue is that the sourcing here is not high quality, especially where Wikipedia is, in effect, making accusations of untruthfulness and potential mental illness. WP:BLP specifically states that material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.  For me, this could be the paradigmatic case of that warning.  But I might be wrong.  Shall we get some other opinions at the noticeboard? Dumuzid (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not making allegations; we're reporting them. Define 'tabloid journalism'. Neither of the two sources I linked to above are available in tabloid format. How is the sourcing not high quality when it is accurately reporting the allegations being made? Would you like to help find other sources to include instead? For now, as objections have been made both to the pre-14 Nov version and the current version, shall I reduce the 'personal life' section to just the first paragraph and possibly the last? Are you saying you don't think we should even mention the allegations at all? Uakari (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the allegations should be mentioned with this sourcing, but I generally believe in the wisdom of the crowd so was thinking of inviting more opinions. I will note that "the source is high quality because it is reporting accurately" strikes me as perilously circular reasoning, but as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Dumuzid (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Short paragraph proposal
How about a short paragraph or so built mostly around articles in NZ Herald and The Guardian? Some rough draft language, part of which is copied from Factitious disorder imposed on self: Firefangledfeathers 21:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Better sourcing, obviously! I would still probably leave out the specific mention of Munchausen Syndrome--that feels like a bridge too far for me for something which is still based on an Instagram story.  That said, as ever, I will defer to consensus.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not wedded to it. I would also be ok with "suggested that she had fabricated stories of injury to garner attention or sympathy" or something similar. The Guardian Munchausent a few times, though it does also refer to the whole thing as a "conspiracy theory". Firefangledfeathers 21:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't synthesise the draft partly from another Wikipedia article. Also, this all seems to fall under the caveat of WP:NEWSORG: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Speculation about a psychiatric condition is just gossip even if she responds to it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The more I read the articles--especially The Guardian--the more I am coming to this conclusion. That one seems to very much discount the rumours, calling them a "conspiracy theory" as noted and generally sort of disdaining them.  This is, however, one where I am really not sure so am happy to go whichever way achieves consensus.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think most of your points are good ones, but my draft is not synthesized partly from another Wikipedia article, I just copied some language to describe Munchausen. Firefangledfeathers 22:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Life story' is a bit vague - don't we need to actually to say what the allegations are about? They're about far more than the injuries: also the cancer/scares/pre-cancer declarations/timelines, allergies, bee incidents, whether she worked as a model, etc. The Independent also has a summary of some of the allegations:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/jameela-jamil-munchausens-syndrome-car-accident-instagram-a9331246.html


 * This seems better than the Guardian source because it is objectively reporting the allegations rather than filtering them through a solicited interview with the subject. It's not our place to judge that the allegations are a 'conspiracy theory', but rather whether they are notable enough to be included in terms of how widely they havd been reported and how pertinent they are to the subject's personal life. The trouble with asking very broadly for wider comment is that people have visceral reactions to what they think the article is implying, whereas what they're really reacting to is what the subject has said about herself. You might be seeing a 'synth' issue because the subject really does make these very numerous, dramatic and contradictory claims about herself, so when we report them, it looks like we can't possibly be reporting them accurately and must have an agenda. That's all those more casual readers in 'the crowd' will assume if they don't read and watch all the sources in their entirety. That's why I suggest reducing the 'personal life' section to a stub for now, with the first paragraph that seems to be less controversial. Then maybe we could work on expanding it together and decide what to include and how? We need to also discuss whether to include mention of the cancer-related and bee-related stated experiences separately from mentioning the allegations, and how, because it could be argued these are notable especially as Mark Ronson also spoke about the bees. Uakari (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to so drastically cut the current version. I would prefer to remove the current language about Rockcorps, which currently just lays out an unspecified "injury" with no real relevance to the reader. Firefangledfeathers 03:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is similar to my objections to the current version: a lot of things are unspecific and not entirely accurate in terms of either what had been reported as stated by the subject, or in terms of what is actually shown in the Hardtalk interview and YouTube videos (which I do think are important and we could still find a way of citing along with other secondary sources). Other examples of this incompleteness/inaccuracy are reference to cancer and cancer scares (but ignoring the timeline inconsistencies and ignoring where she spoke about signs of pre-cancerous cells), and the reference to sexual assaults (but ignoring the highly unusual and most notable occurrences stated by her: three separate men ejaculating on her leg on London Underground escalators on three separate occasions). So as not to take a POV, I think either we need to discuss these matters completely and accurately in terms of the sources, or not at all. This does mean that the personal life section might be longer than usual, but I think is necessary because what the subject has said about herself is very specific and trying to summarise it in one sentence tends to lead to inaccuracy, incompleteness and POV (that we assume the gist of what she has said rather than the actual statements or what they refer to as reported/shown). Some of her statements (eg about Rockcorps) are only really notable in terms of discussing the allegations and what is shown in the three YouTube videos of the incident. Otherwise these supposed injuries are not really notable at all. I also note another comment above that objects to the lack of thoroughness of new version, plus another that agrees with preceding writing about what the subject has said with 'she states' so as to be entirely neutral and avoid any POV issues one way or the other (given the allegations and the seeming contradctions between what is shown in the videos and what the subject has stated). I am reluctant to spend time and effort making further edits in regard to the objections to the new version if these will just be reverted, so does someone else want to read all the sources and watch all the videos cited in the pre-14 November and have a go drafting something first, including describing the allegations using the Independent and NZ Herald sources? If no one does want to then I can try, but as I am still somewhat unclear about the nature of the objections to the previous version, I may inadvertently introduce wording or sources that will be objected to again. Uakari (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So, I have essentially come around to Morbidthoughts' take on this, and were I king of Wikipedia (someday....), I would be cutting with abandon. But I am mindful not only that I am not a consensus of one, but also that this, for me, is largely a gut feeling and others are entitled to feel differently.  As such, please consider me a !vote for "chop it way down," but I am not going to be obstreperous towards what seems to be a possibly emerging consensus.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I oppose this proposed text. It fails WP:NEWSORG, as Morbidthoughts outlines better than I can. Morrissey is not sufficiently notable that the claims are necessarily high-profile by virtue of who made them. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They're not notable by virtue of who made them; they're notable by virtue of how widely they have been reported, including by the Independent and New Zealand Herald sources mentioned above. I oppose the text you added for the reasons stated in my previous post above, and this has been opposed by at least one other editor above. We need to use 'she has stated' and provide more details when discussing issues such as the cancer-related claims because of what the Hardtalk interview and Fashion Targets Breast cancer videos show, or else not discuss this. We mustn't be seen to take a POV. Using 'she has stated' in every place where you have recounted what the subject has said as undisputed fact would go a long way to improving your version. The Orange Rockcorps incident in particular is not really notable unless specifically in the context of discussing the allegations of fabrication. The same for the allergies statements. The bees/vehicle incidents are notable in terms of the allegations, in terms of Mark Ronson's statement as someone present for one of them, and because this is an unusual experience to have repeatedly. The sexual assault claims need to be expanded giving the detail of what the subject has actually said, otherwise they are not particularly notable - the current summary is quite misleading in terms of the numerousness of the Underground assaults in particular. It could be argued that the numerousness of the things the subject claims to have endured is notable regardless of the allegations. How to put that without being accused of WP:SYNTH is another matter.Uakari (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Jamila's own words can't be BLP
Stop removing her own stated history of her medical and trauma related past. Whether she has Munchausen and her being accused of it is a different discussion. CaptainPrimo (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If you can demonstrate that you have consensus for the inclusion, I will happily stop. Until then, it simply strikes me as overly detailed and unnecessary to the article.  As I say, happy to be wrong if people disagree.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * As stated above, I agree with including some of her statements about herself with various sources such as the Hardtalk video, as well as discussing the Munchausen's/lying allegations in a BLP-compliant way. These allegations are certainly at least as notable as anything else in the article and there are plenty of reliable secondary sources that we could be using to discuss them. I would like to work on how do to do this with someone if there are any volunteers. I don't however agree with including any more of her statements about herself in any way that implies they are necessarily true or that there no discussion or doubt about her statements, given the wide reporting of the allegations and the apparent inconsistencies revealed by primary and secondary sources. Uakari (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I continue to oppose this suggestion, per much of the discussion above. It's a real storm in a teacup to say that this brief social media drama is "at least as notable as anything else in the article" i.e. Jamil's decades-long professional career. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Bees
Why was the section on her fabrication of being chased by bees removed 2607:FEA8:4C82:CE00:BD5C:1DB9:5AC7:7EA5 (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't say offhand; you would have to go through the history. But if you want to suggest some wording and a source here, we can all certainly consider it.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

A particular user argued it was not notable, even though it's one of the things she's most noted for, and that it was somehow not NPOV because they felt it showed her in a bad light. Would be happy to reintroduce my well-sourced summary of it if this doesn't result in another edit war. Uakari (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the last summary you proposed was opposed by enough people that it evidently does not have consensus. Consensus can change, but there's no sign yet that it's happened. I do think reintroducing it would lead to a revert (hopefully not a full-on war). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We do have to be careful, however, not to avoid writing about notable and verifiable aspects of BLP just because some users might interpret them as showing the subject in a bad light. Otherwise we can end up with an unduly truncated article, as has happened in this case with the 'Personal Life' section, as well as risking violating NPOV. I can't actually remember whether it was the inclusion of the alleged bee incidents specifically that led to objections. As this is the specific paragraph currently under discussion, the following is how it previously appeared, so users can discuss if/how to reinclude it or an edited version of it. I do not think I was the only user that contributed to it:
 * " In interviews, Jamil has mentioned several bee attacks in her life, including being hit by a car at age 17 when running away from a bee. In 2015, Jameela claimed that while she was interviewing musician Mark Ronson in the Hollywood Hills, the 'biggest swarm of killer bees' she had ever seen made them retreat. Ronson contradicted Jamil's version of events, describing 'one or two individual bees' and walking 'slowly inside' in response. Jamil related that while filming the first season of The Good Place in 2016, she was chased by a dark swarm of bees and again got hit by a car. In 2019, Jamil stated she ran away from bees while crossing the road to the UN headquarters to give a speech. "
 * Uakari (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Uakari (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder what 100 people would say if asked what Jameela Jamil is most noted for. Of course, you'd get some "who is Jameela Jamil?" responses, but I don't think you'd get a single "she said she was chased by bees". — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right: They are more likely to say "host of Playing it Straight who said she was chased by bees".Uakari (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Jameela Jamil
is not English. She is "-" British. English is an Ethnicity. "-" British refers to nationality. I have adjusted the intro accordingly. WirmerFlagge (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * WirmerFlagge, you have now reverted four times in violation of WP:3RR. I would respectfully ask that you self revert your most recent change.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * i don't think so. i suggest you refrain from edit wars. particularly when your basis is what seems apt and not what is correct. WirmerFlagge (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * British and English are both correct; the latter is more specific. Again, I would ask that you read WP:3RR.  In addition, you are the one seeking a change to the status quo - you should therefore seek consensus first.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dumuzid please address issues here WirmerFlagge (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Describing this person as "Asian-British" in the opening line of a bio clearly violates MOS:ETHNICITY, which states Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Dumuzid appears to be correct that either "English" or "British" is fine, and that "English" is simply more specific. I am unaware of any official guidance as to which we should consider preferable. Is anyone here aware of any overarching consensus on the matter? Generalrelative (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 's description of "British" being a "nationality" and "English" being an "ethnicity" is nonsense. There is no such clear distinction. is correct that MOS:ETHNICITY means we should only cover nationality. "British" and "English" are both fine. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

calling her "asian", otoh, is a bit of a stretch. she's US-based now, and the US does not classify indian or pakistani as "asian". should the page still be written in british english? 2601:19C:527F:A660:2597:BA6B:D1AE:4649 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The US most certainly does classify both Indian and Pakistani as Asian, because both India and Pakistan are in Asia. That some people would use a term like "Middle Eastern," doesn't make them designations or classifications in the US, just like "Arab" isn't a classification of heritage or residency in the US; those are simply terms that some people continue to use regardless of how appropriate or accurate they are. But it's a moot point, given that there is no justification for listing her nationality as anything other than British in the introduction. CleverTitania (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)