Talk:J.John

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 30 October 2015 by reviewer SwisterTwister (talk · contribs).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

John Ioannou

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

@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]

I understand your point. But how do we, as editors, deal with the possibility that this publicity would harm his privacy? Tinihere (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? The story's been in The Telegraph already! The Telegraph story is based on a public comment J.John made on social media! Is the sentence in any way inaccurate? It doesn't demonize him, it accurately describes what happened. There are no privacy issues to be concerned about here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]