Talk:Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List

Neutrality tag
The article's current wording reflects the US government's perspective; it could be improved by the addition of more citations to better contextualize the subjects' history and use. In particular the characterization of the list's targets as "beneficiaries of certain authoritarian regimes" (and to a lesser extent, "US designated terrorists") is inappropriate in the absence of independent reliable sources to support it. signed,Rosguill talk 03:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @Rosguill: The list is openly a "US gov list of X", and so the list inherently incorporates the views of US government. There is nothing else to balance this out with. Unless a source was to claim that the US government did not know its own mind, and was confused about why it assigned certain individuals to the list. As it is, surely it is simply descriptive of the only available and relevant information? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We should be basing our coverage on secondary sources' assessments of the US-gov-defined list, and follow their framing. Phrasing such as "beneficiaries of certain authoritarian regimes" and/or use of the label of terrorism should only be included if secondary sources applies them; in principle, independent RS could disagree with the US's application of authoritarian, terrorist, etc., and could provide further context regarding both a) the extent to which these labels are solely the US perspective and b) the extent to which other labels can accurately describe the targets affected. Now, RS may agree with the US on some or all of the labels applied, but even in that scenario we should be providing the RS view, not primary sources from the US government, for verifiability's sake. signed,Rosguill talk 18:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead section image is in violation of wikipedia policies
I strongly believe that the Lead section image exposing the address of Carrie Lam should be deleted from the website. There are several reasons why this image violates Wikipedia's policies and should not be allowed to remain.

Firstly, Wikipedia has a strict policy on the privacy of living people, which states that personal information should not be published without their consent. The image in question violates this policy by exposing Carrie Lam's personal address.

Secondly, that part of the image in question does not contribute to the article in any meaningful way. It is not relevant to the topic being discussed and adds no value to the reader's understanding of the subject.

Finally, the image could potentially be used for malicious purposes, such as stalking or harassment. Given that Wikipedia has a large user base, the image could be easily accessed by anyone with an internet connection. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy on user safety and should not be tolerated.

Based on these policies, I strongly urge the Wikipedia community to take action and remove the image exposing Carrie Lam's address. It is not only inappropriate and irrelevant but also potentially harmful to the person concerned. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be reasonable to swap the image to the SDN Listing for a defunct entity like Azza Air Transport, it still demonstrates the function of the SDN search, but a PO Box for a defunct company isn't harming any living persons. Finbee (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)