Talk:Sophie Jamal

Eastell mention
@Springee I'm not sure what your BLP objection is. The note is careful not to say fraud, just "misconduct", which could be anything, immediately clarifies that he was cleared, and is backed up by a reliable source. BLP does not prevent the mention of any or all information that could be construed as negative, only that we have to take care that it meets NPOV and V, and the footnote does both. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Even the accusation of fraud is a BLP concern. Given he was found to have not committed fraud we really should just leave it out.  It's not germane to the facts of this article.  BLP is clear that we should err on the side of do no harm.  Sadly Richard Eastell's article for a long time was about 50% dedicated to amplifying this issue.  However, a recent AFD seems to have a consensus that the emphasis on this investigation was given way too much weight.  Another editor trimmed the material down.  If the Eastell article had stayed at 50% "fraud investigation" I would be more inclined to agree with keeping this here or if Eastell's fraud accusations were related to this topic.  As they aren't and the growing consensus here is the fraud topic is over emphasized in his BLP, I think removal here is the correct thing to do. Springee (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the wording in this article is not an accusation of fraud. It says "misconduct" and goes into no detail whatsoever, salacious or otherwise, and immediately clarifies that he was technically cleared. Considering that what remains in his own article actually does admit that he did something wrong - that "he may have been negligent in making "untrue" and "misleading" declarations" - I do think it's relevant to note. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But it's not relevant to this article. Even the claim of misconduct is something that carries negative BLP implications and shouldn't be included unless its strictly relevant to this topic.  Do we have sources that establish the relevance or that his actions were connected to the issue in this case? Springee (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been pretty divided over this one. I think Springee's removal is reasonable, but mostly in the context of the changes to the original article -- it was an important contextualization when his article was...yeah, sort of a hitpiece, but now it's improved there's less need to note "he didn't actually do much wrong". I can see the argument either way. (Having said that, the WP:DUPLINK removal was wrong -- "by section" is allowed.) Vaticidalprophet 04:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Full name
Is there any reason why her full name is mentioned in the infobox but not in the lead? — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 05:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)