Misplaced Pages

:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:44, 9 August 2023 editJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,538 edits →Unusual situation with Christine Lagarde: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:31, 5 January 2025 edit undoGoodDay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers494,159 edits →Joe Manchin 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Misplaced Pages noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people}} {{short description|Misplaced Pages noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people}}
<noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{/Header}} <noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| archiveheader = {{NOINDEX}} {{archivemainpage|WP:BLPN}} | archiveheader = {{NOINDEX}} {{archivemainpage|WP:BLPN}}
| maxarchivesize = 290K | maxarchivesize = 290K
| counter = 351 | counter = 365
| minthreadsleft = 1 | minthreadsleft = 1
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 12: Line 12:




== ] ==
== Seeking help correcting page re Stan Rose ==
{{archive top|1=Deleted: all BLP issues have been resolved. Non-admin closure. ] (]) 23:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)}}
* {{la|Stan Rose}}
* {{lafd|Stan Rose}}


I'm the subject of this page: ]


This text under Personal Life in the ] biography is poorly fact checked. Note refers to gossip regarding Shorts love life. Should be removed entirely.
There are two notices, and I believe both have been resolved or are no longer relevant, but have no idea how to get the notices removed. 1) "reads like an advertisement" - I don't believe this is the case. It follows the guidelines and reads similar to other biologist/entrepreneurs; 2) "lack of references"- there are many references cited. Thanks for your help reviewing the page and hopefully removing the tags ] (]) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


Source: https://decider.com/2024/10/24/meryl-streep-martin-short-only-murders-in-the-building-romance/ <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:That article has zero independent, in-depth sources. It should be put up for deletion. ] (]) 18:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
:It has been removed. Decider is not an appropriate source to put weight on. ] (]) 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Each statement in the page is referenced with a link to a published article, either from well-established independent sources or the URLs of well documented entities. If one is missing it can be added - or the statement deleted ] (]) 18:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
:::The references are a collection of company statements and press releases, many of which don't mention the article subject at all. The article doesn't show that it meets either ] or ]. If this is the best sourcing available we're going to have to delete the article. ] (]) 19:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC) ::This user doesn’t exist anymore, and the Meryl Streep article says the same thing, plus if you actually look into it there’s a lot more supporting it than just that one article so there’s no reason it can’t be included. That article actually includes quotes from the showrunner himself in fact. ] (]) 20:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Have any reliable sources actually reported that it is a confirmed relationship? The most recent reliable sources seem to be framing it as a rumour (), which fails ] in addition to BLP sourcing concerns. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the clarification. I have reviewed WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE. Over the next few days, asap, I will be replacing references that do not comply with those standards, as well as any content that does not. Kindly allow time to make the necessary updates so that the article does not need to be deleted ] (]) 22:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Even the Decider source says "Short and Streep have not publicly commented on their relationship status". Tabloids are expected to pursue rumors and innuendo; Misplaced Pages is not. ]&nbsp;] 20:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Mr. Rose, it would be helpful if you logged in before each post or edit. Keeping only one account is also the best practice for an inexperienced editor. If you forget a password, it can be recovered instead of making a new account or editing logged out. Also, you should stop editing the article about you. See ] and ]. Otherwise, more time would not bring your ] up to standards required by ]. Several editors are looking for good sources on your behalf in the deletion discussion, and are coming up empty handed. ] (]) 20:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
::::: We now have new accounts trying to edit-war the material into the article. I have reverted again, but will protect if this carries on. ] 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for your help with this. As I just posted in reply to ], I am new to this. I appreciate you pointing out these issues (logging in, COI, not editing). I hope the new references are helpful, as I was simply trying to assist in bringing this article into compliance - but others should handle. Going forward I will make suggestions here if I think they may be helpful, and not directly edit. ] (]) 22:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
:@] Based on your username I assume you are the subject of the article. If that is the case you should also read these: ], ], ] and make sure to declare your conflict of interest (see: ] on how to do it). ] (]) 17:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for your guidance. I am new to editing. I happened to read the article (which I did not create) and wondered why it was tagged. The first thing I did was to note that I am the subject of the article (see top of this thread). I now see there is a process WP:Conflict of interest, which recommends noting the COI in the Edit Summary. I have tried in good faith to be transparent and helpful, but now understand that other editors should handle this. There is another good source I found that may be useful, but will leave that to others: https://www.newspapers.com/image/529144177/?terms=%22Stanley%20Rose%22%20CEO%20&match=1
::The Capital Times,
::22 Apr 2004, Thu · Page 56-57 ] (]) 22:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
:::The article was created by {{u|Pioneer28}}, who in their total of 55 edits only edited ] and no other Misplaced Pages articles. Are you Pioneer28 or know the person who operated that account? ] (]) 22:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
::::no, I'm a scientist and 3 time CEO who is widely known in my field (DNA analysis and genomics), saw the article was tagged, and naively tried to help improve it to be compliant. I now understand that proper procedure would have been to suggest changes here and allow editors to consider them, and appreciate everyone's help ] (]) 23:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Mr. Rose both states and insinuates not to have created the article under the ] account ( ; ; ). But Pioneer28 submitted a of Mr. Rose for the article, stating it was Pioneer's own work in the copyright info. Mr. Rose later as his very first edit. Pioneer28's edits end on 25 March 2022. ] started 29 July 2023. Both are ]s. The likelihood they don't know each other is zero. The likelihood this is a new or different user is also close to that. ] (]) 23:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::I understand everyone is trying to be helpful, but I'm not that other user. The old photo you're referring to has been widely circulating for many years, and used in PR pieces by various companies. I did/do not own it. The picture I provided July 29 is one I do own and is more current (taken in 2022) ] (]) 00:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Pioneer28 claimed the copyright to that close up photo of you. According to its metadata, it was taken on 22 December 2008, Pioneer28 created your article 3 weeks later and uploaded the photo on 30 January 2009. It's highly unlikely that Pioneer28 simply scraped it from published sources just a month after it was taken. It's just as improbable that they, without any connection to you, decided to devote the entirety of their Misplaced Pages editing to your article. ] (]) 09:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::The current version of ], as in the identity of the editor, is just a wikilink to a redirect to the subject's article. I'm not sure how this doesn't also claim Pioneer28's identity as the subject, all edits considered. I plan on watching this space after the article is deleted. This promotional project started in 2009. It's quite long term. ] (]) 03:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I understand your rationale, but I'm not that user, and never ran a "promotional project." Apparently my naive efforts to be helpful were ineffective. If the editors feel an article describing my work as a scientist/entrepreneur doesn't belong on wikipedia, that's beyond my control. Thank you for an informative experience regarding the nature of this site and how it is administered. ] (]) 18:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== Curtis Campbell == == Edit War on Trump ==
{{cot| IP User should keep discussion on ] talk page. ] (]) 19:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}}
So it has come to this hasn't it?
This incident all started on ] when ] won the recent election. Following this, an edit war ensued. This occurs in the section after the ] in which ]. People keep editing the title, changing it to "Interpresidency", "First post-presidency", or most recently "Post-presidency". I see this is taking place on a Extended confirmed article. I request it be upgraded to an appropriate level. ] (]) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


There is an IP user ] claiming to be Curtis Campbell, editing his own page. He seems to be blanking information he does not want made public, like his former last name. ] ] ] 19:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC) :Care to point to exactly what / where / when? And really, don't bring this sort of thing here unless <u>absolutely necessary</u> and if it can't be resolved on the relevant talk pages. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well, you see, I tried to do it on the individual talk page but it didn't exactly work out so well. More names were put in as suggestions. This occurs in the section currently called "Post-presidency (2021-present)" as well as the relative ]. However this name has been changed multiple times until being changed back. As for the when, Pinpointing it exactly is not feasible. The last time an edit occured in this war was sometime before December 26, 15:00 CDT. To examine the talk page go near to the bottom till you see the discussion "Edit War". I thank you for your time. ] (]) 18:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I imagine, when he takes office on January 20, 2025 - the section-in-question will be named differently. ] (]) 19:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cob}}


== Eternal Blue (album) ==
:I'm not seeing any source saying that these two Curtises are the same person. It may be considered ] territory, since they've both been credited with writing the same work, but there is room under strict ] strictures to make this article soley about Campbell and references using that name. -- ] (]) 19:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
::I agree that there should be RS acknowledging that the two are the same person before we start treating them that way. ] (]) 20:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


This article is an ]. In my review, I brought up a question that hopefully can get resolved here. A band member is cited from for a statement about another band member - specifically, for the statement that the rest of the band met the band member only two days before touring. I've understood that generally, interviews, and especially statements from the interview subjects, are considered primary sources. And in this case, the interview is also by the publisher of the publication, so even the secondary coverage is essentially self-published. My question is, is citing interview statements from band members about fellow band members a violation of BLP policy?
== ] ==


Depending on the outcome here, I also will have a follow-up question about a different set of articles.--] (] &#124; ]) 13:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Just wanted to get some extra eyes on this, since accusations of associations with ] are very serious. This article has been receiving increased politically-motivated vandalism lately. Recently, an IP added a section called "," which read to me as slanted because of the key details it left out and the unnecessary details included. It's this topic was inserted, but it was previously reverted outright. I didn't think it should be removed wholesale since this is a real issue that has received mainstream so I made an attempt . I am still not sure it even deserves a whole section header.


:Well, we'd want to make sure we're following ]. Is there something particularly contentious or controversial about the claim being made? If not, then we're fine to use it. ] ] 13:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
In addition to the Epstein-related edits, there were two other recent additions from IPs of negative material: and
. These are still live in the article, and should also be checked out for ]/]. ]·] 04:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:Yes, it's a primary source, but the statement about him isn't negative or contentious, and it's clear that it is "According to LaPlante...", so I don't see an issue here. Problems with interviews being primary sources generally occur when they are being used as criteria for notability, which isn't the case here, or when there are disputes about their truthfulness or authenticity, which also isn't the case. ] 13:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Lee Fang and Business Insider are not appropriate sources for this type of contentious material. ] (]) 07:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
::As you (]) know, there's a great deal of disagreement about what "self-published" should mean for WP's purposes, what the consensus practice is for considering something self-published, and whether the current definition reflects that practice. I haven't been around long enough to assess whether using this is/isn't consistent with the consensus practice. As best I can tell, the current definition of self-published + the exceptions are primarily intended to keep editors from using sources that are less likely to be reliable for the content in question, especially for BLP content. This source seems reliable for the fact that LaPlante said it, but uncertain re: whether it's reliable for the content of her statement.
:{{EC}} I have removed most of the content related to ] as it was only sourced to Lee Fang's Substack i.e. an SPS; and Business Insider which isn't a great source so should not be used for contentious matters concerning a living person. It's possible better sources are out there on this material but someone needs to find them before adding the content. ] (]) 07:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
::Seems to me that whether or not one considers this "self-published," policies prevent the use of this source for this content. If you treat it as self-published, it either fails as BLPSPS (if you consider it as self-published by the interviewer/owner), or it fails BLPSELFPUB restriction #2 (if you consider interview responses as essentially self-published by the interviewee, though I think that interpretation is problematic). If you treat it as non-self-published, then because it's a primary source, WP:BLPPRIMARY is in play, which says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." A quick search didn't turn up any secondary source discussing this particular content, and if it did, there would be no need to rely on the interview for this specific info.
::Okay, thanks! We're on the same page, I just was less bold. :) The part you left in was what I had added with a RS to balance it out. ]·] 19:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
::Can you get consensus here to include it anyway, since it isn't contentious and the claim is attributed? The first two responses suggest "yes." But, it also doesn't seem like important content for this article (perhaps more DUE on the Spiritbox article, though it's not included there). I think it could easily be omitted, in which case the issue is moot. ] (]) 17:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{U|Black Kite}}, thank you. That's where I would fall on the issue, and where historically I've always fallen, but I wanted to see if my view is reflective of consensus or not.-- ] (] &#124; ]) 20:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] == == ] ==


Some experienced eyes would be helpful ] for a long running BLP dispute between mostly IPs and new editors. Some watchlisting would probably be helpful as well. Thanks. ] (]) 13:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
First thing, I should disclose that I represent Mr. Goetz. And while I recognize ] permits direct editing to remove unsourced information, we still prefer to bring questions to the community and avoid making COI edits.


:On it. ]] 13:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The issue in question is the infobox, which lists a spouse and children. No source has been provided. Even if one can be found, ] indicates that the "standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified". I believe the circumstances here warrant its removal.
::I appreciate it, thanks. ] (]) 14:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the IP needs blocking. SPA and edit warring. ]] 14:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I've warned them about the edit warring and directed them to the talk page. Hopefully that'll have been a productive use of my time. ] (]) 15:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:The disputed entry impacts on an active libel and defamation case. It seems to me this entry has been deliberately edited to suppress public knowledge of the recent libel action. The amendment from 'abuse allegation' to 'abuse allegations' clearly implies more than one public accuser, a further distortion of the truth that seems highly prejudicial to Mr Stanley (a living person) and directly impacts upon his livelihood. The source cited for these amendments, screenanarchy.com, is a blog entry and, in my opinion, not a valid primary source. I believe these amendments have been made by Finland based journalists promoting a tabloid 'documentary' 'SHADOWLAND', that seeks to exploit this case for financial gain. ] (]) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Once again - this is matter for the article talk page. You have already been specifically . This is now becoming a competence issue. ]] 16:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
In the , the allegations and response occupy a section of their own, and have two whole paragraphs of prose. ]? ]? I'm not convinced that any particular prose dedicated to this topic is encyclopedically noteworthy, especially without a resolution or other events indicating an enduring biographical significance. It would be a shame to actually wait ten years to see, but I don't think it clearly passes that test yet. ] (]) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
Other than these infobox listings, the article is otherwise entirely focused on his business endeavors. ] suggests to include "only material relevant to the person's notability" when the person is not well-known, and indeed Mr. Goetz generally keeps a ]. He has not held a leadership role at his VC firm for several years, and grants few interviews. In fact, a columnist for the '']'' of the same name has many more hits.
{{archive top|]: the appropriate forum is now ]. Further talk page and BLPN concerns should be voiced there. This is no longer the place. Cheers. ] (]) 03:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The article in question is about my uncle, Frank Pando, who has requested that I delete the article written about him. As evidenced in both his article's talk page and by a notification on that actual page, there are plenty of problems with both sourcing and notability. I have tried to put up a suggested deletion notice, but it was promptly taken down by some user who said that the subject's request to delete the article is invalid. I strongly urge my fellow editors to take heed of the notability/citation concerns, as well as my uncle's request, and kindly delete this page. ] (]) 15:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


:I have started the ] discussion which could lead to it being deleted. You will find the discussion ], and are welcome to join in (though it may help if you read that first link to understand the process first). -- ] (]) 15:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
For these reasons, I'm requesting an uninvolved editor to consider removing the mention of spouse and children from the infobox. Thanks, ] (] &middot; ]) 17:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:May I ask what he objects to? Skimming through the article, it's just largely looks like a laundry list of roles he's played. I do t see anything particularly contentious or controversial... ] ] 16:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Apparently, the subject may object to his mere presence here. I wouldn't have any gripe with that. Living people of marginal notability certainly have the right not to be here. He might still be mentioned on articles where he played a role. But not a marginal standalone biography online that anyone can edit willy nilly. When you're a private figure, it's a due consideration. ] (]) 02:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== AfDs and BLPs ==
:I've removed the unsourced spouse and children from the infobox. ] (]) 17:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


Those watching this page may be interested in this discussion: ]. ] ] 21:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::I really appreciate it, thanks very much. ] (] &middot; ]) 19:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:::And thank <u>you</u> for coming here exactly how you did. Too few do. I've watchlisted the article as I'm sure some others here have and will do. Again, thank you! ] (]) 04:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


== Problematic redirect from one BLP to another: Rabea Massaad ==
::::Hi again ] and ]. A few days after our discussion, another editor, ], edited the page for the first time to add information about Mr. Goetz's marital status and number of children, which of course I had made the case for removing. I reached out ], although they declined, stating the material was properly sourced and uncontroversial. I understand this view, although my interpretation of BLP policy is that when family members are not public figures and they have no relation to the subject's Notability, the subject's wishes for privacy on these details should be observed. As always, I will not directly edit the article, but I hope I can contribute usefully to the matter in this thread. Thanks, ] (] &middot; ]) 14:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
{{archive top|]: Resolved and recommended for closure. ] (]) 05:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:::::The argument can be made that disclosing the names of Mr. Goetz's children and spouse is violating ], but mentioning that he is married and the number of children may be of interest to readers and appear to be public information. I don't know if there is a policy violation per se. ] (]) 14:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Rob Chapman and ] do not appear to be the same person, and no redirect between them should exist without any explanation at the redirect target, ]. The ] specifies a different redirect, and through a series of ] and a double redirect removal, we're now in this mess. So after a PROD by another user has already been denied on *cough* *cough* procedural grounds, can we finally rectify this situation? The easiest way I can see is still simply deleting the ] page (without prejudice). Thank you. ] (]) 04:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't see an issue with noting the marriage and the number of children, while leaving out the names. ] (]) 16:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Have added a little more info from Goetz's own page at ] and his NED page at ]. All standard stuff that our readers would expect for any business bio here. I have very extensive experience on business BLPs over many years, and this being my first time editing the article should be a positive. As an experienced volunteer, I can be more objective than someone who is paid by the subject. ] (]) 20:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


:] looks like your forum. ] (]) 05:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
::To clarify, Rob Chapman and Rabea Massaad are separate guitarists who once played together in a band called Dorje. The 2017 AfD for Massad resulted in a redirect to Dorje, and the 2023 AfD for Dorje resulted in a redirect to Chapman. Massad has a fairly robust online presence and is therefore a plausible search term. I mentioned him briefly at ] and edited the redirect to go to that section. By the way, Chapman and Massad are still close associates but the band is defunct. ] (]) 18:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I added a reference verifying Massaad's role in Dorje. ] (]) 18:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Can I ask someone to review whether this very serious allegation is properly-sourced and if so how we should treat it within bounds of ] etc. Thanks. --] (]) <small>]</small> 10:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
::::So now we have a section of Rob Chapman's article which serves as the main Misplaced Pages mention of the band Dorje. There is also a redirect ] which goes there. My updates the redirect ] to point directly to the section of Chapman's article that mentions the band. Hopefully this is not a controversial edit. Now that Cullen328 has improved the referencing, I don't see anything else to be done, and suggest that this thread be closed. ] (]) 18:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:It's possible there is some merit to include mention of the Twitch ban, but definitely not anything like that. It looks like an IP has removed it along with their earlier even more problematic change. ] (]) 13:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thank you to all for fixing this and not directing me to forum shop. ] (]) 18:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}
== Sattai Duraimurugan ==

Can someone please take a look at the mess that is {{la|Sattai Duraimurugan}}, and figure out what the heck to do with it? It isn't at all obvious that the individual (an Indian YouTuber) meets Misplaced Pages notability criteria, and even if he does, we certainly don't need the edit-warring that is going on, or an article containing badly-sourced and poorly-written content about 'charges' that seem not to have resulted in convictions. ] (]) 15:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

:I've created an Afd at ] - ] 16:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
::I have reinstated the text about the legal issues since he is a ], and the AfD needs to consider the basis of his notability; that he keeps getting in trouble due to his political speech. ] (]) 18:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Those were ] coverage and I would have added that in my Afd rationale if that section was not removed. - ] 20:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
::::As I mentioned in the AfD, multiple RS reporting of prosecution of political speech is not routine. ] (]) 07:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

== ] ==

@] and I are looking for someone to weigh in on a BLP issue in the ] article.

In the lead, it currently states: "Again, all of the defendants were acquitted by a jury that accepted their claims of self-defense, despite reports of 'vivid newsreel film to the contrary'." This is sourced from a contemporary opinion piece published in the . In my view, this violates ] by qualifying and casting doubt on the acquittal (suggesting that a crime had indeed taken place despite the lack of conviction) without enough sourcing (one line in a single op-ed).

Stix disagreed based on the article not being a biography and questioning if BLP applies, suggesting that removing names of some of the shooters would nullify the need to remove the qualifying of the acquittal, and that the sourcing is adequate.

Currently looking for someone to give input on these points. ] (]) 21:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

:Without offering an opinion on the content: ] is clear that it applies to all material about living people anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Assuming the people in question are identifiable and alive, the fact that the article is not a biography and/or does not name them does not mean BLP policy does not apply. (Also note that per ], we presume that people are living and thus BLP applies unless they were born more than 115 years ago or their death is reported in a reliable source). ] (]) 22:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
::I agree with Caeciliusinhorto about when BLP applies. As a practical counterpoint, this case doesn't come close to the likes of the ], where the mother was acquitted and the article is impossible without naming her. But here, I think not naming possibly living people does resolve the problem. BLP ''still applies'' even when people are unnamed. In this case, keeping names out while retaining reliable sources seems fine to me, absent identifying prose (that also can be removed). We don't have to repeat every detail even from good sources, and BLP means we remove names of individual acquitted defendants from a massacre unless the accused were already notable (see: ]). ] (]) 00:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks to KiharaNoukan for tagging me. I feel like removing the names from the article might be ideal, as it's not really adding any relevant information to the article, since they're not famous.
:::Sorry to be skeptical about this originally. I've personally never seen BLP applied to historical non-biographies, and I wanted some advice from people that specialized in this matter. I do appreciate the opinions of editors who volunteer on this noticeboard regularly.] (]) 09:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
::::For the point on names, as it has been mentioned, BLP applies while people involved are unnamed. From what I understand on JFHJr's post, we can retain the source and other info from the sources that provide names. I understand that point, and the article does rely heavily on the same sources that provide the names. That being said, the naming of individuals occurs outside of the quote in focus, in separate sections, and the source utilized is not the same one that provides us with the names of individuals involved. This is a general question for noticeboard contributors: Let's say the article strips out all mention of names. Would inclusion of skepticism on whether an acquittal was in the right, sourced from a single op-ed's objections to it, be in line with BLP guidelines, and if so, should that belong in the lead of an article? ] (]) 21:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::I'll speak only to this case. See , , and who all make a point to report the "all-white jury". Yes, this casts aspersions on the process and result. Rightfully. BLP means we also don't name the (some of the) same defendants who lost or settled civil suits including wrongful death. ] (]) 21:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::@]I agree, there are plenty of good sources that talk about the all-white jury. I have no issue with it and it's been well-sourced. However, I am referring to "vivid newsreel film to the contrary," which is sourced from a single line in a single op-ed. I would be very surprised if that is enough to go past BLPCRIME threshold for inclusion. ] (]) 20:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I don't have a problem with mentioning the newsreel footage. It's reasonably sourced. There's no reason to think it's not reliable because it's an op-ed. There are already correctly aspersions on the process and resulting acquittal. This source doesn't support a stand-alone criticism of the trial, just one line within a well established all-white jury context. The newsreel doesn't make me question the acquittal any more than the jury itself. Withholding names is enough for BLP concerns in this article. ] (]) 21:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I triple checked sources on this and I was able to find mention of footage from a news piece that might work better than the op ed:
::::::::"It has attracted national attention in the four and a half years since the shootings, in part because videotapes of the event made by television news crews appear to show Klansmen and Nazi members methodically firing at Communist demonstrators and others on a Greensboro public street."
::::::::However, with relevance to the trial, non opinion RS still do not describe the footage as "contrary" to the defendants' claims or their acquittal in their own voice, instead opting to present POV of prosecutors, jurors, and defense. Example: Above mentioned and .
::::::::@] As a compromise would it work to mention the footage in the context of attracting national attention in the article in lieu of "despite vivid newsreel film to the contrary" in the context of acquittal? Possible inclusion: "The incident generated national attention after video from TV news crews appeared to show Klansmen and Nazi members 'methodically firing' at marchers." This would better reflect how the footage is described by publications that mention it. ] (]) 23:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::No particular source is required to establish that the acquittal verdict was contrary to and despite newsreel coverage. It just is. It's nice that the op-ed used the word "contrary" though. See ]/]. There's less of a BLP issue saying "contrary" than describing particular and detailed actions of the accused in the video as you have proposed. ] (]) 23:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::This is hardly a ] issue if multiple RS refuse to describe the footage in that manner, and instead opt to give weight to the opposing POV.
::::::::::From the Washington Post article:
::::::::::"Indeed, the evidence -- from dramatic videotapes of the shootout filmed by TV crews at the scene and testimony from 132 witnesses, including FBI acoustics experts -- clearly showed that both sides were firing 'at each other,' said Lackey. He felt the defendants acted in self-defense." ] (]) 23:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::However, more cites in the article to these sources would be awesome! No reason to jettison the op-ed though... a contentious claim like this should have more than one reference anyway. ] (]) 23:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::In regards to the op-ed should keep ] in mind: {{tq|Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.}} ] (]) 07:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@]: ]: "Applicability of the policy BLP applies to all material about living persons <u>anywhere on Misplaced Pages</u>, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." Amen. ] (]) 22:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, an ip hopping editor is edit warring to add unreferenced material to this article and .The youtube video they have linked does not include any rebuttal by Hinchcliffe and the accusation of racism at Pang is just the editor's own opinion in my view ] (]) 00:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

== Eduardo Vítor Rodrigues ==

This page has been vandalised consecutively. It is even currently blocked due to excessive vandalism.
According to Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living people, the information in articles cannot be supported by tabloids. All the information in this article is supported by tabloids. Furthermore, the content on this page only concerns court cases. This content is biased and, once again, goes against the policy on biographies of living persons, more specifically against the principle of impartiality.
The content should be deleted. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Per the discussion at the Teahouse, this relates to a biography on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, and thus is out-of-scope for discussion here. ] (]) 16:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

== Garrett Camp ==

'''Page''': ], an early co-founder of Uber that was only involved in the early days

'''Content''': A section called "Complaints by Uber Workers"

'''History''': This section has been removed three times by editors. It is restored each time by {{ping|Chisme}} in September 2019, October 2019, November 2020, and now in July 2023. The section was deleted most recently by {{ping|Tristario}} in response to my prior BLPN post. You can see Tristario's explanation regarding ] .

'''Context''': I work for Mr. Camp. Chrisme says I am whitewashing the page but I have not edited it. I have disclosed my connection, expressed my concerns at BLPN, and proposed a less promotional rewrite that has not been approved yet. The rewrite does not include Chrisme's section about criticisms from Uber workers because that section was not on the page at the time. I am not aware of any other criticisms the draft would remove that would give rise to an accusation of whitewashing.] (]) 20:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks for your disclosure and restraint. I haven't checked out your proposed version. But I did combine the undue complaint section into the wealth section, since that's the actual topic. Certainly, a stand-alone complaint section is not merited in this biography. ] (]) 22:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
::@] If you are going to edit the articles of biographies of living people, you need to make sure that your edits comply with ] and the other policies of wikipedia. This is something that has been repeatedly removed by other users. Instead of accusing other users of whitewashing, you should consider the concerns they raise seriously.
::In this case, issues with your edit include ], ] and ]. This clearly doesn't deserve its own section per ], but I also don't think this even belongs in the biography per ] since it's actually more about complaints about the conduct of uber than Garrett himself, and it doesn't meet ] since this "allegation or incident" hasn't been reported by multiple sources. ] (]) 22:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Garrett was criticised probably because he was still on the board of directors at that time. Protestors even camped out at his mansion so they blame him along with the other execs. ] (]) 23:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
::::That's a separate protest isn't it? And it's just a brief line about people protesting at the homes of Uber investors. And neither article says he was on the board of directors or even give any specific allegations about the conduct of Camp himself (besides buying the house). This doesn't seem like biographical information to me. ''Maybe'' we could have a brief line about people protesting the wealth disparity, although that still somes somewhat trivial to me ] (]) 23:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::] is not applicable under a plain reading of ]. There's no crime here. There's no third party either. On the other hand, I support Tristario's notion that less prose about the topic is merited in this biography. ] (]) 23:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::] does not specify crime, it just uses the terms "negative information" and "conduct", and the third party is Uber. I think the general guidance it's giving is applicable here because we're including complaints about Uber and implying they specifically apply to the conduct of Camp, when the source doesn't actually make such a specific allegation about the conduct of Camp himself.
::::::But maybe the right move here is to just have a brief line about people protesting the wealth disparity? Thoughts on that? ] (]) 23:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The (2019) record-breaking home purchase does seem noteworthy to me in due weight. I added a second ref about it from Forbes. WP:GUILT is still about third parties, as in guilt by association. It doesn't apply at all. ] (]) 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::If we're saying "Uber does this bad conduct" without actually having a source that specifies what Camp's involvement in that bad conduct was, or even that he's still actively involved in Uber, I think that's guilt by association, and I think including that in a biography is questionable, especially based on a single source. I do think your edits are an improvement though. I agree including the home purchase is noteworthy. ] (]) 00:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::...And I've pared the criticism down to half a line. How's it look to you? ] (]) 00:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I think that seems to be fine ] (]) 00:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Naw, it's basically still the same protest about the disparity between the driver's pay versus the wealth of the investors and founders. He was the chairman of the board of directors at the time of the protests so I have no hand-wringing concern about an undue perspective of whether he was really "responsible" for what they are protesting against. ] (]) 03:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Well having a source that specifies that is an improvement. I think I'm fine with what's currently in the article but I do think we need to be careful with things like this, for the reasons I explained above. ] (]) 03:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Morbid and Tristario: BLP-wise, how does the of the article look to you? I've taken a scalpel to some parts and sutures to others. I didn't talkpage any, but I left edit summaries. I found the page had further problems. I think if we can form a consensus on the article as far as sourcing and weight, we can move on to other stuff. ] (]) 05:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I noticed the article did have a fair bit of low quality sourcing so it is in need of a cleanup. Per ], ] seems to be a reliable source, though, so you could add that back in ] (]) 06:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Done. ] (]) 06:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Garret Camp's PR man complains and asks to have news reports about a protest by Uber drivers in front of his house removed from Misplaced Pages. There is obviously a conflict of interest here on the part of Camp's PR man. He should recuse himself from contributing to this article, as he quite plainly has a personal agenda here. It seems a compromise has been reached wherein the purchase is included in the article with the words "drawing criticism from Uber drivers struggling for improved wages and working conditions." So be it. I still maintain we should be careful not to allow Misplaced Pages to be a free PR platform. You may note the Garret Camp article at present includes all kind of falderal detail about Camp: the "50 Best Websites" list, the"50 Must-Have iPad Apps" list, ranked number 6 in Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies, etc. etc. etc. We even learn which actor portrayed him in the movie "Super Pumped." It seems to me several PR men have worked over this article in the previous years. As editors of Misplaced Pages, we should try to maintain high standards. ] (]) 19:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing out another instance of undue weight in this biography. I've addressed your valid concern by removing the prose and the references, plus another that didn't even mention the subject. The biography should not slide into a collection of non-noteworthy corporate detail. If the details belong anywhere, it's on the article for the company. ] (]) 19:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
:...about your other concerns:
:1) ] did an excellent job of disclosing his conflict of interest, and sought attention in the correct way. He never touched the article; he made a proposal; he responded to feedback; he sought help here. I can't speak for any other editors on the article. Please remember to ] when you disagree.
:2) A criticism section in this non-public figure's ] presents undue ]; consensus here is half a line is okay. It's just not a big part of this human being's life, encyclopedically speaking. Its prose should be congruently small.
:3) As long as they were ], no news reports were removed. In fact, there are now two references supporting the criticism you support.
:4) The actor ref is solid, and the show is apparently notable. So it's noteworthy here, one line looks fine. Cheers! ] (]) 20:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
:So, the above points aside, and just considering the current state of the article, would you join a consensus that the ] policy-related issues have been addressed? And if there are remaining issues, what are they? ] (]) 22:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks JFHJr for vacuuming some of the fluff out of the article. I appreciate the time you took to examine it. I have no issues as long as the protest by Uber drivers remains in the article. Yes, PR man John Pinette disclosed his conflict of interest. I was aware of that. Ny point was, because Pinette has a conflict of interest, his edits and proposed edits should be viewed skeptically. ] (]) 22:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I understand and thank you. Please note, I haven't put any time into JP's proposed edits or asked him for any consensus or feedback on the BLP edits for the same reason. If his proposals make it into the article, they'll still need to be BLP compliant. I think you can let go of JP. He's not a disruptive editor. ] (]) 22:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
:::It's important that biographies of living people on wikipedia comply with ], and if another user raises concerns, whether they have a conflict of interest or not, you should seriously consider those conerns. If you haven't already, I would recommend reading through ] ] (]) 23:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

== ] ==

Requesting more eyes on this article as an IP is trying to add names of accused, but with sourcing problems and giving out more info that appears to be in the public domain. ](]) 21:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

== List of conservative artists ==

There are some serious BLP violations on {{pagelinks|List of conservative artists}} that I'm not sure how to fully address on the article's talk page. A glaring one is the inclusion of names, identifying them as conservative, without proper sourcing and/or with notes containing subjective explanations. It's also strange to see at least two registered users that only created accounts in the last few weeks heavily editing that article, which raises suspicions about socking. Please advise. Thank you. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
:Wow, there's a whole bunch of things going on there, none of which is good: entries which probably could be sourced but are not (e.g. there are surely plenty of sources discussing ]'s politics); entries where there are sources but they don't necessarily support the inclusion in this list (] is famous for saying politically controversial things, but is it meaningful to call him a conservative? The sources cited don't!); entries based on original research (] is included based on a source describing him as critical of the EU; ] would be very surprised to learn that being critical of the EU is a conservative position!); entries which are just highly questionable on their own merits (] appears to be included purely on the basis that he gave an apparently entirely apolitical speech at the 2000 RNC; he also appeared at the DNC in the same year and has since endorsed Obama and Biden for the presidency, so even if he did once hold conservative views it's not at all clear to me that he still does).
:I suspect the issues with this article all boil down to the inclusion criteria, or lack thereof. The current inclusion criteria suggested by the lead seem to me to be completely meaningless: "artists who held politically traditional beliefs were associated with conservative politics" suggests that any artist who has ever held conservative beliefs or been associated with conservative politics is eligible for inclusion, which isn't super useful. People's political views change, as does what is considered "conservative". Possibly a meaningful list of conservative artists could be made if there were strict criteria on inclusion and it was actively maintained by editors aware of the dangers of it becoming "list of people some random wikipedia editor thinks have conservative views", but this article is not it. ] (]) 11:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
:Without any specific sources ''for each entry'' that explicitly demonstrates that the bulk of the media considered the person a conservative artist, this list fails BLP. There ''is'' probably some relevance of a topic "Conservatism in the artistic field" or something like that, and where a few well-known examples could be mentioned, but a full list is hugely subjective and shouldn't exist on WP ] (]) 12:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
:I agree with everything Caeciliusinhorto-public and Masem said. It's a hulking mess. Everything that's unreffed about a living person should be removed, then all that fail V. Then cn for all the dead people with no refs. I don't have the time now but might get to it in a day or two if nobody else does. And I hope someone does... happy to provide backup, time allowing. ] (]) 00:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

== Bi-State League ==

The article Bi-State League lists the league's presidents. The name of one such president is Jake Wells, listed as league president in 1936. The name in this article is a hyperlink to an article about Wells (https://en.wikipedia.org/Jake_Wells), but that Jake Wells died in 1927. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. ]&nbsp;] 19:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

== Shrawan Kumar (geneticist) ==

This is about the Misplaced Pages page, Shrawan Kumar (geneticist), that was submitted in November 2022. The comments made by DoubleGrazing on July 23rd have left me feeling very disappointed and disagreed with. It's possible that {{they|DoubleGrazing}} didn't have the opportunity to evaluate each line of the article and the scientific merit of all the references provided in this article. However, I totally agree with first (TheChunky) Wiki editor’s comment or rejection of the article on January 5th as {{they|TheChunky}} pointed out some peacock terms in the article and {{they|TheChunky}} had no issues about references. I greatly appreciate {{their|TheChunky}} comment and the article has been completely revised in line with {{their|TheChunky}} suggestions and submitted in March 2023. Although at that time – many pre-internet era references link was missing. I took great effort in finding those very valuable research papers (references from 21 to 38) and link of each published papers are provided. Misplaced Pages readers now can access all those papers just by click of a button.

Coming back to the issues raised by current Wiki editor/reviewer that “there is far too much unsupported content’ which is not true. On the contrary, I provided way more references of every topic mentioned in this article. If someone is reading first paragraph about Kumar’s research interest such as molecular genetics, forensic science, biological anthropology, and population genetics – there is no reference provided in the beginning of that section. However, the reference of molecular genetics research work is provided in the same section below (reference number 8 through 19). The reference of Forensic Science research work is provided from references 21 through 28. The reference of biological anthropology and population genetics is provided from references 29 through 35. The BOR gene discovery reference is provided from 1 through 11 and 17, 18 and 19. The reference of PKD gene discovery is provided from 12 through 16. Reference of Kumar’s personal theater work (picture link in Wikimedia Common) is provided, line 6, in the section Education and Early Life. Reference of Kumar’s current work and career pathways – online PDF link is provided in line 15 of the first paragraph of the article. His work on the Onge population; the link is provided from references 36-38 and picture file is in Wikimedia Common – line 6 in the section education and early life. Reference of his current work is provided, available online, line 15 of the first section. NIH funding information is provided as reference number 39. The reference for serving in the editorial board of South Asian Anthropologist is provided (copy of the picture -in Wikimedia Common), line 9, in the section research and career section. The human chromosome workshop reference link is provided from 40 through 42. Also, if you review the history of editing of this article when this was submitted in November last year, several Misplaced Pages editors made very constructive comments and researched internet and added references about Kumar’s NIH funding source and his human genome project research work. I did not have those references.
The other concern this Wiki editor had is that “do not pile all the citations at the end as it does not make clear which source supports”. Again, if you review the subject and source all the references are for the same subject. For example, line 11 in section Education and early life eight references (number 21 through 28) are provided after the word Forensic science. If you click on each reference all are related to forensic and serology work; similarly, it is true on the next line seven references are linked after word population genetics and all research papers are of population genetics. I can understand the confusion as it is rare to find the geneticist who had interests and research publications on so many different aspects of genetics. I tried my best to provide as many references as possible I can get for each subject for the benefit of the Misplaced Pages readers and fixed the concerns related to first rejection – now again- this appears unending process, therefore this request.


== ] ==
In summary, many Misplaced Pages editors have already edited and added some missing content and references to this article, when submitted in November, 2022, making constructive contributions. I am grateful to them. Unfortunately, I don’t have any more references to add. This article is already supported by extensive references compare to many biographical articles I see in Misplaced Pages. In terms of notability, the discovery of genes is very impressive and great contribution to genetics which will be great for Misplaced Pages readers. Based on the facts, provided here, I request to Misplaced Pages administrators to examine the article and make the necessary editing/changes if needed and move it to an appropriate place. I would also like to inform that recently I noticed this biography is available in many other wiki pages such as Wikitia etc. I did not submit this article anywhere in the world except in Misplaced Pages. Thanks. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Full of BLP and NPOV vio's, unencyclopedic language and unreliable sources. I removed a couple. &nbsp; Much of article reads like it was copied from a blog post or tabloid, and lack of proof of Native ancestry (and/or or not being enrolled in a tribe) is repeatedly conflated with lying. --] <sup>]</sup> • <sub>(])]</sub> 18:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:I took a look, and there are many problems with this draft. First, the tone is all wrong for an encyclopedia article. It appears to be written by the subject or by someone very close to the subject, because there are many things in there that only the subject could possibly know. Things like "...he showed a keen interest in acting...", "...he was interested in medicine...", or "...continued his zeal to do research...". People don't write that way about other people, because it implies an ability to read his mind. (See: ]) That's how people tend to write about themselves.
:... and the two diffs above got reverted , restoring some really poor prose and sources. This is a very sensitive topic area and I don't want to ] anyone, but clearly the article needs more experienced editorial eyes and existing editors need to review ] (and hopefully realize the difference between editing an encyclopedia and human rights advocacy). --] <sup>]</sup> • <sub>(])]</sub> 11:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Unless a published '''reliable''' source specifically describes the person as a "pretendian", they should not be on that notable examples list at all. BLP is clear on this - any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately.]] 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


:One problem is that while the article is about people who falsely claimed Native American heritage, its title is from a pejorative slang term, which it begins by defining. Perhaps a change of title along with moving information about the term Pretendian further down would help.
:There is far too much technical jargon, especially in the lede. Private individuals like spouses, parents, and children should not be named. Then there is quite a lot of ]. But the biggest problem is that nearly all the sources are his own research papers. These are ]s, whereas Misplaced Pages is a ], so we rely on ]s for our information, which are things like newspapers, books, and magazines. The question is not one of how many papers he has written, but how much attention has his work received from others outside his specialized field in the scientific community. That's what we mean by independent sources, that is, sources which are reporting on him but are not connected to him in any way. Those are the kinds of sources we need to determine notability.
:Listing any notable people who have pretended to have native heritage is a recipe for imbalance and unwieldy length. Instead, we should find sources specifically about the topic to determine which persons are significant to the topic. It's more important to understand why this happens, how frequent it is and what damage it causes than to provide a hit list of perpetrators.
:] (]) 15:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|1=It's more important to understand why this happens, how frequent it is and what damage it causes than to provide a hit list of perpetrators.}} Well said! ]&nbsp;] 15:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:*The title strikes me as violating ]; I'm skeptical that the term is common enough to pass ] for the phenomenon. If the article is going to cover the phenomenon and not the neologism (and currently, most sources in it don't use the term), it needs to be renamed to a descriptive title. The hard part is coming up with one. --] (]) 16:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
A lengthy requested move discussion already occurred and nothing has changed with the term to warrant a title change in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pretendian#Requested_move_21_December_2021 ] <sub>]</sub> 16:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*It seems fairly evident that the neologism and the phenomenon are both notable, but we shouldn't be covering the phenomenon under the neologism: I don't see evidence that "pretendian" is the dominant descriptive term even for high-profile cases of falsely claiming native ancestry. And it goes without saying that an absence of evidence of native ancestry is insufficient to list an individual on that page. ] (]) 17:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::I mean, if the article is titled "Pretendian", the ''only'' sources that could justify putting someone on the page is a source using the term "Pretendian" specifically. It's a sufficiently emotive neologism that we can't really ] someone into that category - any source that doesn't use the word "Pretendian" is useless. If we want a list of BLPs who fall under the broader concept, we would need a separate article for that; we can't label people with a neologism without a specific source using the term. --] (]) 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:That discussion is three years old, but more importantly, it doesn't address the ] / ] issue. We can have an article on a neologism, absolutely; we ''cannot'' label individuals with a negative neologism unless we have a source using ''that precise word'' to refer to them. Any living person named in that article must have at least one high-quality source calling them a "Pretendian", using that exact word. Anyone who doesn't have that source backing up the fact that they have been called a "Pretendian", specifically, needs to be removed immediately until / unless that source is found - sources that use other words are useless (and ] / ] in context.) --] (]) 16:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::The term "pretendian" is used frequently in news sources (some Canadian news outlets have dedicated reporters on a dedicated "pretendian beat". The term is used in academia (, , to weed out the Spanish-language discussions). ''Indigenous identity fraud'' is used but not nearly as often. If you want to suggest a name change, the talk page of ] would be the place to do it. ] (]) 16:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In order for a BLP to be included in the notables examples list though, the derogatory term "pretendian" needs to be used frequently and widely published in high-quality reliable sources describing that individual as such, in order for the BLP to be included in that section per BLP and LABEL.]] 18:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree with Isaidnoway, Aquillion and others. It's one thing to have an article on the concept and under that name. That might very well be justified if there are sufficient sources referring to it. However it's another to list living persons as pretendians. That needs sufficient sources establishing it's a common enough term used to describe this person. These sources needs to clearly use the term and not simply say other things such as the person has claimed Native American ancestry but it appears to be false. Likewise in others on the person, it's fine to mention controversies over any claims, but they should not be called or categorised as pretendians without sources. ] (]) 07:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's not a matter of what the article is named; the problem is ]. For an emotive, negative term like "pretendian", we need, at the absolute bare minimum, at least one source actually describing someone as such ''using that precise word''. Going "well these sources accusing them of indigenous identity fraud are essentially the same thing" is ]; in other contexts it might not be enough to worry about but in the context of applying a highly emotive label to a living person it's unacceptable. We can have an article on the term, but we can't use it as the general list for people accused of {{tq|indigenous identity fraud}} because of that issue; all we can list there are people called "pretendian" ''specifically'', using that exact word. --] (]) 15:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That's valid. Some people have been described as "pretendians" in published, secondary sources. I'd be fine with a separate list for Indigenous identity fraud since that's a more neutral descriptive term that is increasingly being used in scholarly writing. I've been slammed IRL but can find citations in the near future. ] (]) 15:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:This is a complicated issue (especially from a BLP perspective) and it seems like a lot of the long form sources note just how complicated an issue this is. I think that others may be right in saying that there may be multiple overlapping notable and perhaps less notable topics here which can be organized in a number of ways. ] (]) 20:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
:Notability is not determined by how many papers someone has written, but by how much they got noticed and picked up by the media in general. That's not to say that his accomplishments are not noteworthy, but notability requires that people outside his field took notice and decided to write about him. Those are the kinds of sources we need, and without them, it is highly unlikely this draft will ever pass muster and make it on to mainspace. I hope that helps explain, and good luck. ] (]) 21:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
:The relevant draft is ], for easier reference. ] (]) 22:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


I'd appreciate it if some of you BLP experts could have a look at this article. I pruned it some already and found a curious mix of promotional language and possibly overstated accusations. Note: I just blocked an edit warrior from whitewashing it. Thank you so much, ] (]) 02:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
Discussion at ] and ]. ] (]) 16:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


:I've had a small prune and clean up. ]] 10:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Harald Walach ==
]


The "]" section for this guy needs more eyes, I think. The first sentence merely states that he has "advocated for revision of the concept of evidence-based medicine, promoting holistic and homeopathic alternatives in his publications." and then links to a ] source showing him writing about these topics. What's the controversy here?
User stated he can do "whatever the fuck he wanted" and restored unsourced negative commentary about a living person here.


The last paragraph I removed because the RS link provided did not appear to say what was claimed in the paragraph (when I read the translation), but the author did insinuate a "scandal" not directly related to Walach, though. But it was reverted by @] who said I "don't know what I'm talking about" and that I'm "whitewashing" Walach. So, I'm hoping to get another opinion on this. ] (]) 23:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169403375&oldid=1169403171
Please assist. I methodically read EVERY source and updated the article before the vandalism began with a large number of small edits, each citing the evidence and sourcing.


== ] ==
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luis_Elizondo&action=history


I would like to bring some attention to this BLP, as there is a particular claim that keeps getting reinstated, often with poor sourcing (including, so far, a Wordpress blog and ], which as self-published sources are ]). {{ping|FMSky}} has been adding the content with the aforementioned sources, along with, as of writing this, two sources on the current revision I am uncertain about, morecore.de () and metalzone (). I can't find discussions of either source at ], so I would like to bring this here to get consensus on the sources and the material they support, rather than continuing to remove the material per ]. Thank you. ] (]) 03:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Please help. Live version seems to be a big BLP violation and not neutral at all.
] (]) 22:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC) :Its fine, he made these comments. Nothing controversial about it. Move on --] (]) 03:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Please see ]. Even if he made those comments, they need reliable sources verifying them (i.e., not ]). Simply put, Wordpress blogs and people's self-published YouTube videos cannot be used to support claims about living people. ] (]) 03:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes here are 2 https://www.morecore.de/news/finn-mckenty-the-punk-rock-mba-verlaesst-youtube-ich-habe-es-nur-wegen-des-geldes-gemacht/ & https://www.metalzone.fr/news/208728-finn-mckenty-the-punk-rock-mba-aucun-interet-musique/
:::We can also put in the video of him uttering these words as it falls under ] --] (]) 03:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think citing the video itself as a primary source would probably be the best option here. ] (]) 03:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
: That comment was in response to the claim that I couldn't unilaterally undo My name is not Alexander Hamilton's edits to the article, which is obviously untrue to anybody whos edited Misplaced Pages. My reversion could not reasonably be construed as vandalism. My name is not Alexander Hamilton is a SPA who has almost exclusively edited this article. My name is not Alexander Hamilton's editing had the collective effect of removing any negative commentary from the article. None of the negative commentary in the article was unsourced. Some of it many be undue, but that's something to be decided at the talkpage or at this BLPN discussion.. ] (]) 22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::"None of the negative commentary in the article was unsourced."
::The one I highlighted in the talk page just now is literally a lie based on the source cited. The other user just also violated BLP here. I don't care how many edits you have. User here attacked me and intentionally violated BLP. ] (]) 22:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::"None of the negative commentary in the article was unsourced."
::Are there rules for how someone is supposed to begin? Am I supposed to edit a bunch of random stuff first before finding something interesting to focus on? ] (]) 22:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Regarding rules, I suggest you start by reading ]. Reverting your edit was not 'vandalism'. Not even remotely. ] (]) 22:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Is it vandalism to restore BLP violations? ] (]) 22:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::I would strongly advise you to drop the hostile attitude. This is a content dispute, and you aren't going to win it by rule-mongering. ] (]) 23:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::BLP policy says to remove all violations.
::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged
::::::"contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."
::::::That is what I did. Is that rule not binding on all of us no matter what we think? ] (]) 23:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


This biography of a pseudonymic pornographic actress (primarily notable for work on OnlyFans) was created on December 29 by {{U|Meena}} and is heavily sourced to tabloids and tabloidesque websites. Some of the sources don't support what they are cited for (e.g. the two cited for her attending a particular school, and misrepresentation of sources on whether she's from Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire). The date of birth is unsourced and the real name is sourced to that cites it to the ''Daily Mirror''. I have tried an emergency initial BLP cutback; {{U|Launchballer}} has tried a more severe cutback; the original has been restored by an IP and by {{U|Tamzin Kuzmin}} with the alleging vandalism and misogyny in the edit summary. ] (]) 17:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:With regard to the underlying issue, which seems to revolve around whether Elizondo was actually a director of the ], as I understand it, this has been questioned in credible sources. Other sources state it as a fact, but that in of itself may not be sufficient to do the same. I'd suggest that people start by finding relevant sources and citing them here, since this discussion is going to get nowhere without them. ] (]) 23:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:I went through that article and yeeted everything I could find that either did not check out or was sourced to an inappropriate source. I suggest draftifying.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 20:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::No, that's a load of bunk. It's not about "AATIP", it's about the literally opening line in the article as an example of the broader problems.
::...and it's all been restored (again) by Tamzin Kuzmin. Who also happened to , replacing it with a report about an article they've never edited. Hmmm. ] (]) 20:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::
:::Metacomment. The reverting user was blocked. The block notice implicated ]. So I removed the ] post here, but it's available at the diff above by ] in case an editor in good standing cares to clean it up, talkpage it, and/or follow up here. Cheers. ] (]) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::''Elizondo claims he was a director of the now defunct Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program...''
::And cites a 2019 article that CONFIRMS from the DOD that Elizondo worked at Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence but had no "responsibilities at AATIP".
::See here: https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/
::My version is BLP compliant as seen here and cites a later dated, updated source from NBC News, which has more veracity than Intercept:
::My version: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luis_Elizondo&oldid=1169403775
::It says: ''"Luis "Lue" Elizondo is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent and former employee of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence."''
::^ that sentence is incontrovertible.
::NBC News describes him:
::''Whether the UFO sightings are the result of advanced technology from foreign adversaries or if they have more bizarre, otherworldly origins, government officials need to have the facts, said Luis Elizondo, a former senior intelligence officer and the '''former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program'''.''
::This is the cornerstone of the article. People are wildly cherry picking articles to make every single solitary reference question this living person and to make them look bad. ] (]) 23:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::Here--this is a simpler example of what's wrong with a huge number of passages in the article.
::Click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169289811&oldid=1167347555
::] (]) 23:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Asking for both sides in a dispute to provide sources is not 'bunk'. ] (]) 23:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::::The 'bunk' is unilaterally restoring BLP violations. I know some 'wikipedians' edit by political moves but I'm not going to. I removed BLP violations. According to everything I've ever read the BLP policy is basically God and the rest of are irrelevant against it.
::::So that edit, what's wrong with it? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169289811&oldid=1167347555 ] (]) 23:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::While ] is a word to watch, using it is certainly not a BLP violation. It's, at worst, a violation of ], but if what is being stated really is a claim and not substantiated, it cannot be ]ed as fact either which makes the violation more of a ] issue. I do not think ] is considered the fact-checking juggernaut of all fact-checking juggernauts when it comes to who had what role in the US government. Indeed, it is generally considered a biased source. ] (]) 00:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::The Pentagon flat out said he worked there. Why would we say claimed? ] (]) 00:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::They verified his directorship? I must have missed that. ] (]) 00:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::They verified he worked at a specific office. You're the second person now who seems to be misunderstanding and conflating unique topics.
::::::::See here for expanded context: ] ] (]) 00:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh, but they did not verify his directorship. Too bad. Well, if and when they do, fortunately Misplaced Pages can change wording to confirm. Until then, I see your options as saying that he worked in a certain office or ] -- namely Elizondo himself. ] (]) 00:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Why do you keep going back to that AATIP Director topic, which is not the topic at hand? Are you engaged in some futile attempt to bait me into something? It will never work, so save yourself the mental energy. Whatever game this appears to be, it's a waste of time.
::::::::::Do you have anything to contribute to my proposed hyper-specific edit here? ] ] (]) 00:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::I see that you made . That seems to be a problem to me. Do you agree that it is a problem? ] (]) 00:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::* Cited source: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/ufos-are-make-way-us-senate-know-rcna973
:::::::::::::* May 19, 2021, 10:53 AM PDT / Updated May 24, 2021, 2:59 PM PDT
:::::::::::::* By and ]
:::::::::::::: ''"Whether the UFO sightings are the result of advanced technology from foreign adversaries or if they have more bizarre, otherworldly origins, government officials need to have the facts, said '''Luis Elizondo''', a former senior intelligence officer and the '''former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program'''."''
:::::::::::::One writer at a local newspaper and the Black Vault (?) site that compiles FOIA requests seems to dispute all that. Why would that one tiny news source outrank the aggregate weight of all others, including the New York Times and NBC News? ] (]) 00:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::]. We should not be asserting things which may be false. We don't seem to be able to verify this solidly. But, fortunately, ]. If and when better and solid sourcing emerges, we can update the page! Until then, it is not great to change disputed information into bald statements of fact. It's not the end of the world, but it isn't good practice. Maybe the best thing is to remove the whole "director" thing entirely until it is sorted out. There is ], after all, and I'm sure that as time goes on things will become clearer. And even if they don't, well, it probably is best for Misplaced Pages not to get into the mess since we are under no obligation to ]. Make sense? ] (]) 00:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Are "essays" binding?
::::::::::::::::What "policy" authorizes us to dispute multiple news articles from major news sources about minor details of a persons personal history? ] (]) 00:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::(ec) The topic at hand here is whether the Elizondo biography is WP:BLP-compliant. ''All of it, whether in its present state, or as it was when you'd completed your mass edit''. There seem to be good grounds to suggest that while you removed one WP:BLP violation, you added at least one too. Accordingly, I'd advise you one last time to cut out the hostility, before it backfires on you. You aren't going to win arguments that way. Stick to discussions over content, cite sources, and give other people a chance to respond. ] (]) 00:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Re: hostility -- I saw the troll who attacked me was chastised by some Administrator, so that is fine enough. I assumed we just went at each other here after that persons unhinged reaction, but that's nice that we don't.
::::::::::::I am happy to engage in strictly policy compliant editing, but I will not toe any ideology for any UFO woo-woo types or any skeptic/debunker ideologies either. I'll just follow the rules of the site.
::::::::::::Apparently a lot of the fringe on both sides dislike this Lue Elizondo for different reasons. Now that I have read about ], I think I will get this article to that level and work to get it on the Front Page of Misplaced Pages on principle. If that takes a thousand absurdly documented edits, cool. ] (]) 00:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:In regard to this first issue, currently the article states:
::"From 2008 until his resignation in 2017, Elizondo claimed to work with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in The Pentagon."
:This is sourced to . However, the source specifically says "Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI , up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017". Therefore, adding "claimed" based on that source appears to be a BLP violation, as it isn't a claim so much as a fact if it has been confirmed by the Pentagon that he worked for the OUSDI. There is a separate statment, that he claimed to be the director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, and that seems much less certain so the "claimed" seems warranted. - ] (]) 00:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::Correct. I was warned this entire topic (why?) would be contentious, but that doesn't matter to me. That's why I edited each line, by line. As you say, this edit request is INCREDIBLY narrow. I will happily quintuple or decatuple source every sentence. ] (]) 00:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I whole-heartedly agree with Andy. As an outsider who knows nothing about this, you could either gain my support or turn me right off, and hostile attitudes are a major turn-off. Maybe it's just me, but it reminds me of one of my brothers, who will argue vigorously with people --even as they are trying to agree with him! It makes me think, "Whoa, I don't wanna get involved in this mess." In most instances, on Misplaced Pages or otherwise, you'll never convince the people you're debating with, so at a certain point it's not even worth trying. But debates are never about convincing your opponents, and I think people often forget that. Who you should be talking to, and trying to convince, is everyone else watching this page. People who haven't already made up their minds. People like me. But that will never happen if you don't remain composed and civil. Does that make sense? Right now, you are your own worst enemy if you can't get out of your own way.


== Poorly sourced Russian spies/ex-spies poisoning claim of Bashar al-Assad ==
:::Now, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because many people don't realize just how strongly their emotions come off to the reader in writing. The general thought seems to be that "people can't see my face or hear my tone so they have no clue what my emotions are", but the opposite is actually true. Emotions come off far, far stronger to the reader ''because'' we don't have those facial expressions or vocal tones to augment them. (For more, see ]) So my advice is, tone it down if you want to get others to look into this and maybe even get involved. I hope that helps, and good luck to you. ] (]) 01:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Brilliantly said Zaereth. ] (]) 04:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
: "My name is not Alexander Hamilton" has been indef blocked by Courcelles. I have no strong opinion regarding the "claimed" regarding the OUSDI or other agencies. ] (]) 01:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


{{la|Bashar al-Assad}} BLP attention is needed. {{diff|Talk:Bashar al-Assad|1267015498|1266549621|On the talk page}} I have warned about the Russian spies'/ex-spies' Telegram claim of Bashar al-Assad being poisoned being too poorly sourced. Probably because of al-Assad's as a fugitive wanted for ] and as an ex-dictator, few people seem to be bothered with leaving the rumour in place, despite the low quality of the sourcing that all point to a viral rumour based on the ''General SVR'' ] channel. The ]ly "may have been" and "it was reported that" seem to be seen as sufficient to justify propagating the rumour, without attribution to ''General SVR'' as the source of the claim. After half a day, none of the more regular mainstream media sources appear to have said anything about this, including independent reliable Russian sources such as '']'' and '']''. Currently there are two sentences with the rumour (one in the lead, one in the body of the article). Diffs:
To provide some additional context here for those that are confused: Elizondo is fairly well centered in the current tempest-in-a-teapot that are happening with respect to UFOs. The media has not been exactly stellar in their accounting of all this (unfortunately following a ]alist playbook). Elizondo is not the current focus of much of this clamoring, but the sources that focus on Elizondo are all from the last dust-up that happened in 2017. There is an ongoing internecine spat between Elizondo and a tabloid journalist named Stephen Greenstreet who did a deep dive trying to verify Elizondo's story and has concluded that there are misrepresentations in the stories that he has told and that have been repeated uncritically by a variety of media outlets. For example, it is uncontroversial that Elizondo was in the employ of the DoD, but the precise nature of the AATIP (including even what the acronym even supposedly stood for) is not well attested to by anyone other than Elizondo -- and almost all reporting on how this program supposedly works traces back to statements he made. Meanwhile, there is somewhat strong evidence that the program was operating more-or-less as an arm of Robert Bigelow's flight of fancy including such fantastical elements as ]. The implication is that this is something of a ] situation all over again with a decently sized, unsupervised government budget running amok on a wild goose chases. Greenstreet has really only self-published his allegations, so I would be very uncomfortable using them as sources in any BLP, but it is undeniable that the independent verification of Elizondo's claims has only happened for a select portion (like, we can ''confirm'' that videos and pilot testimony exist, but a lot of the other stories Elizondo is repeating right now have never been backed up with anything but his own say-so). Given that the entire subject is something of a ] game, for obvious reasons, I would argue that Misplaced Pages has good cause to be extremely cautious about all statements about Elizondo that are being reported in even otherwise upstanding media. Unfortunately, the incentive in this area seems to be to publish stories quickly for the views/revenue rather than making sure the facts are right. Careful journalism does not seem to be the concern even among sources we would normally consider beyond reproach. Again, ]. I think the best thing Misplaced Pages can do in this scenario is to drag its feet ''enormously''. Points that we would otherwise not bat an eyelash about should be looked at carefully for independent corroboration (not just a repost of another source's reporting or a parroting of a subject's statements made in an interview). Rather, I think Misplaced Pages would be wise to apply a standard like strict scrutiny to basically any proposed "fact" out of an abundance of caution. When in doubt, leave it out. There is no risk of a BLP violation for ''not'' saying something. If we only include points that are clearly corroborated by ] and ], we will be fine. Stories will continue to be published that take certain claims at face value and repeat them without a clear explanation of how they were vetted, and we should preference those stories which explain exactly how a particular point was confirmed and only state it in Misplaced Pages voice if that confirmation happened through independent and reliable means. This is especially important practice when churnalism is taking over (as was the case back in 2017 with the Pentagon videos). Without independent corroboration, it is irresponsible for us to use the normal arguments of, "oh, this reliable source has said that XXX is true so we can ] it in Misplaced Pages's voice". Unfortunately, in the area of UFOs, the normal approaches do not necessarily lead to a decent accounting of the situation. ] (]) 11:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
* Adding the rumour:
** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266808883|08:50, 2 January 2025}} by {{u|BasselHarfouch}} source = ]
** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266896530|18:49, 2 January 2025}} by {{u|Bri}} source = ]
** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266975208|02:04, 3 January 2025}} by {{u|Richie1509}} source = ]
** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266997014|04:24, 3 January 2025}} by {{u|Geraldshields11}} source = ]
* Removing individual instances of the rumour:
** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266976981|02:14, 3 January 2025}} by me (I didn't realise that other occurrences remained)
** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266998539|04:33, 3 January 2025}} by {{u|Nikkimaria}}
] (]) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:I see, thanks for letting me know about it. ] (]) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== Shellyne Rodriguez ==
::See also: ] from the same source. ] (]) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for clearing up this point, i was not aware of it. I will be careful in the future ] (]) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Joe Manchin ==
On ], one user suggested reporting the ] article because it needs mediation. That's true now. And next Monday (Aug 14), she has two court hearings, so depending on what happens in those two courts (on one day!), the article may need even more mediation next week.


Today we have an unnecessary edit war on BLP outgoing Sen. ] (and perhaps many other articles this morning) about the addition of infobox data which is factually incorrect at the time of insertion (], ]). Nobody is arguing the data, just the timing of the edit. While ] is one person jumping the gun, they are a longtime contributor here. Their position should be taken in good faith, IMHO. Also in my opinion, these edits are technically BLP violations because they impart incorrect information. ], such clear BLP violations {{tq|must be '''removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'''}} (bolding from the original) by ANY editor. This sort of thing might lead to an edit war in which ''everybody'' is trying to do the right thing. Note: the page was correctly edited for the change; one click would have changed it at the proper time of transition.
The issue (from my perspective) is that the honest efforts of Reliable Sources to cover a news story that the Unreliable Sources dishonestly created with a cell phone camera are doomed to failure. Honestly reporting someone's dishonesty repeats their dishonesty.
:1. Does this sort of thing happen every opening of congress?
:2. Isn't this a potential future problem for BLPN, since edit wars on this are built-in to the apparent excitement of awaiting the actual moment of transition?
:3. I'm inclined towards timed page protection, but page protection is not normally ]. literally ''under attack'' for BLP violations. If we know this is common for transitions of administration, isn't this an exception?
While this noticeboard doesn't normally discuss policy, should we be aware of such disruption in advance? Making it harder for '']'' editors like Therequiembellishere who feel... Well, I'll let them make their own affirmative position here if they wish. ] (]) 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


Page protections is the only way. IMHO, most editors who do these premature changes every two years, don't actually realize it's too early. They seem to assume once mid-night occurs, start updating. ] (]) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
As someone who taught at CUNY colleges for 16 years, I read both the Reliable and the Unreliable Sources with an entirely different perspective.
:I raise this issue not to cause a problem today. I'm not trying to unduly embarrass any editor for taking a position I don't agree with. On the other hand, we have established BLP policy the ''hard way'' through sometimes brutal disagreements about how to carefully calibrate opposing positions based on good faith argument. I trust the BLP policy because we earned it. We don't need to re-learn these lessons. But we could discuss ''how to proceed next time''. ] (]) 15:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::In agreement. ] (]) 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Under policy, it would be within the responsibility of any editor to revert these edits and report the editor to this board. But for my starting this conversation, it would be within my remit to revert the edits, fully protect the page and warn Therequiembellishere (and others). I haven't done that. I want the discussion about what to do next time. ] (]) 15:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I understand, this is for the next time around when terms end & begin. PS - I should note, that the premature changes in the BLPs tend to have a ripple effect on related pages. ] (]) 15:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


I've said everything I want on this on Manchin's talk. It's just a lot of pedantry by a few editors with obsessive fealty and exactitude that doesn't meaningfully help anything or anyone, least of all a casual reader. ] (]) 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm curious to hear yours.


] (]) 03:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC) :Verifiability is not "pedantry". Members aren't sworn in until noon EST, correct? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:I can understand changes being made about 1 or 2 hrs ''before'' the actual event, when dealing with so many bios. But 12 hrs before the event, is too early. ] (]) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:That article has and had serious problems. I've removed a lot of content as it was sourced to unsuitable sources especially primary sources like court documents, exam schedules and Students for Life America. Even some of the secondary sources were used in an almost primary source like fashion and they are also not reliable sources like New York Post and Fox News. I left in the use of New York Post in one paragraph that I saw because the rest of the text doesn't make much sense without it but the article needs to be re-worded to only cover what has been reported in reliable secondary sources, not anything that is solely sourced to primary sources or other unreliable sources; so that paragraph needs to be fixed to remove anything relying solely on NY Post as a source replacing it with anything that was reported on secondary sources and removing it where it's not covered. To be clear this includes anything coming directly from the video or anything about what the reporter was told or said which is not covered in reliable secondary sources. In other words, we can report the machete incident but we have to be careful to only report the details on that which we covered in reliable secondary sources. Probably the text can be simplified to how a NY Post reporter approached her at her home and she threatened them with a machete and was fired or something of that sort. Note that while you are free to read unreliable sources for your own interest, they are of very little relevance to what we should cover in our article whatever you perspective. If there is new material from secondary sources tomorrow we can cover that as it happens but we cannot rely on primary source, unreliable sources and editor ] in the meantime. ] (]) 07:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:Obvious BLP violations are not pedantry. Those edits added provably incorrect information. Can ] provide a policy-based answer why those edits do not violate BLP guidance? This is just bad acting under the cover of labelling others. Do they not see that? ] (]) 19:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for your reply. Yes. You noticed the issue. On the one hand, the rest of the text does not make sense without the NYPost article. On the other, the NYPost manufactured the narrative. A pamphlet-splilling is not newsworthy. Why were journalists covering this "news story" at all?
Therequiembellishere's response here demonstrates we actually have a problem, at least with that user, whose reply here is non-responsive to the issue. BLP policy does indeed require {{tq|obsessive fealty and exactitude}}, as long experience with this board has shown. As my OP suggested, any user might justifiably have reverted Therequiembellishere right into 3RR and immediate blocking, just by merely diligently following policy. Therequiembellishere might bookmark this thead for when it happens to them two years from now. I could have done it this morning, but instead chose to create this thread and invite the user to comment. Would preemptive full protection be a reasonable solution to such flippant disruption? ] (]) 20:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::And now that anything Prof. Rodriguez says "can and will be used against her in a court of law," she cannot tell us her side of the story. Instead we all have to wait for a judge.
::So given the inevitable one-sided nature of any writing about what the NYPost did, it would be better to just delete the whole "Legal issues" section than to exclude information necessary to her public defense. ] (]) 13:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC) ::I oppose pre-emptive full protection. I strongly support an immediate sitewide block of any repeat offenders, with the block to expire at noon Washington, DC time on the swearing in day. ] (]) 21:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm with Therequiembellishere on this: a prediction, especially one based on clear US law, is not a false statement or a BLP violation. Joe Manchin's term does end on January 3rd, 2025, and that was still true on January 2nd, 2025. It's, in fact, been true for over a month now. The only way it could end on a different day would be if Joe Manchin had died before then, which would obviously be a BLP violation to assume.
:(Unlike Therequiembellishere I don't even think the opposition is pedantry. Pedants are technically correct; to say that the end of Joe Manchin's term was not January 3rd before January 3rd is not even technically correct. It's just false.) ] (]) 07:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::IMO the issue is not the term ending time but the claim Joe Manchin served as senator etc when he was still serving as a senator at the time. ] (]) 10:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::For further clarity. I think our readers reasonably understand our articles might be outdated. So if the article says Joe Manchin is serving and his term ended a few hours ago or even a few days ago that's fine. I mean in other cases it's reasonable to expect them to even be weeks or months out of date. But if out article says Joe Manchin served, I think they reasonable would expect he is no longer serving. As I understand it, there's no more issue. But if this reoccurs, I'm not sure Cullen328's solution is correct. I mean if some admin is volunteering to mollycoddle each repeat offender then okay I guess. But otherwise the norm is we expect editors to obey our policy and guidelines by themselves without needing handholding in the form of continual blocks everytime something comes up to stop them. Therefore I'd suggest either an admin subject them to escalating blocks quickly leading up to an indefinite if they repeat perhaps under BLP or AP2; or we do it via community bans. While I'd personally be fine with a site ban, it might be more palatable to the rest of the community if we instead do it as a topic ban on making such changes. With a clear topic ban, hopefully an admin will be more willing to subject them to escalating blocks. Even if not, I think the community would be much more willing to siteban such editors if they repeat after a community topic ban. As a final comment, I also don't see why editor feels it's something so urgent that they need to do it 12 hours in advance. This almost seems one of those lame edits we sometimes get at the ANs resulting from the apparent desire of an editor to be first or get the credit so we have editors creating "drafts" with basically zero content long before there's anything to write about then some other editor is sick of this editor doing this and so ignores the draft and makes their own. ] (]) 12:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


{{ping|BusterD}} maybe a RFC or something is required, to establish how to handle future premature changes to such bios. ] (]) 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I want to note that ] may have a ]. They have tried to synthesize a narrative using uploaded screenshots from the university website. It appears Wdowiak works for the same university system as Rodriguez. {{yo|DMacks}} any thoughts about this? ] (]) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


== ] == == Serious BLP vios in ] ==


This article is riddled with serious BLP vios. I tried tagging them, but there are so many I would have to carpet bomb the page with CN tags. This page needs urgent attention from any editors with experience and/or sources pertaining to organized crime. -] (]) 17:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{la|Bernard Looney}}


:P.S. I've taken a look at most of the articles on North American mafia groups and almost all have serious BLP issues. I've added "Category:Possibly living people" with its BLP Edit Notice to all of the pages excepting groups that have been defunct for more than thirty years. These pages are in rough shape and a lot of material needs to be either cited or deleted. -] (]) 03:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello editors, I'm Vishal and I work for bp. I wanted to bring to your attention some made to the Bernard Looney article by {{u|Kirkylad}}. The content additions made here relate to a protest campaign by ], a group which Kirkylad is affiliated with, according to their user page. I don't believe these additions are appropriate in the Bernard Looney article, particularly in their scale and scope.


== Taylor Lorenz BLP issues and harassment of subject based on article contents ==
I think the most applicable policy here is ]. There was almost as much content added about the protest campaign as was in the rest of the article combined. Most of the content added is not related to Bernard Looney. Only the first two sentences are directly related to Looney, and the second paragraph briefly mentions him but is more about what Global Witness did and said than it is about him. The images added also do not do much to help readers understand more about Bernard Looney. This seems to me like a pretty clear cut example of undue weight and inappropriate "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery." The content added would be appropriate, I think, in the Global Witness article, but not in the article about Bernard Looney.


The ] article has an unusual history in the sense that the contents of the article have led to harassment of Lorenz in the past, or other issues impacting her financially.
There are also some sourcing issues. The new content cites Reddit for information not related to Bernard Looney, which appears to be a ] by Kirkylad on a social media site. My understanding is self-published sources shouldn't ] in biographies of living people unless the article subject is the one who wrote the source. It also cites ''Metro'', which is a tabloid and barred from use according to the ] list and an irrelevant-to-Bernard-Looney BBC article.


Most recently it was regarding her date of birth and Misplaced Pages choosing to use a date range, with the allegations being that it was Lorenz choosing to keep her birthdate off of the Internet or being deceitful.
The only source added with this content that both meets Misplaced Pages sourcing standards and mentions Bernard Looney directly is an article from '''', which states that "Global Witness bought out three advertising slots around London to comment on the pay package of Bernard Looney, whose earnings went from £4.5 million to £10 million last year." This seems like a load of content to add about three billboards.
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#


There have also seemingly been issues according to Lorenz with errors in the article causing her lost business opportunities
I would propose removing that material entirely. If editors feel some should remain, I would suggest that a single sentence be added to the prior content about Looney's pay package, to the effect of "Global Witness launched a billboard protest campaign against the pay increase in London in July 2023."
{{blockquote|"This insane 100% false story is affecting my brand deals and some partnership stuff I have in the works for 2025, so I really need it corrected ASAP!!!"}}


An addition of a 'Harassment and coordinated attacks' section was in August of last year, with information being added shortly after regarding a Twitter suspension. I moved the text around recently in an at a more neutral article that was quickly reverted. A followed shortly after but there hasn't been a policy based consensus.
Please let me know what you think. As I have a COI I haven't made these changes myself and am instead seeking thoughts from others. ] (]) 08:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|Morbidthoughts}} cut the stuff sourced to ''Metro'', which is not a reliable source for BLP material; I further trimmed the stuff which wasn't directly related to Looney and moved the discussion of the protest to go with the other content about Looney's pay package. (). I also cut one of the two images of the billboards: one is surely sufficient! ] (]) 09:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC) {{small|fixing ping {{u|Morbidthoughts}}}} ] (]) 09:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::Reflecting the criticism of the pay award is fair game, but I don't think the stuff about the billboards is relevant at all. It's just a silly publicity stunt by a pressure group and will have no lasting significance. I know it was covered by reliable sources, but articles don't have to contain ''everything'' that a reliable source says.] (]) 09:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I certainly have no particular commitment to including the billboards. Some googling suggests that while the controversy over Looney's pay is well reported (e.g. in the , , , and ), the Independent is basically the only respectable source which mentions the billboards; everything else seems to be tabloidy junk. I certainly wouldn't object to anyone removing it entirely ] (]) 09:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


My question- should we have a devoted harassment section included for someone who has been harassed based on her Misplaced Pages profile previously? It seems like ] comes into play with directly focusing attention on her being a victim and could lead to further harassment by highlighting it with equal weight as her career section.
== Unusual situation with Christine Lagarde ==


Personally I think the material could be presented more neutrally per ] but wanted to get a wider opinion.
is likely of interest to BLPN. It's an interesting situation which should prompt some thoughtful reflection.


There is also a discussion currently going on if we should include her year of birth .
In my view, this is a classic example of why IAR is policy. We have a relatively unimportant fact in the biography of a living person (exact marital status) which we have factually wrong, per the subject. It has little impact on history really, but is still wrong. However, it is very well sourced. The explanation is that it was wrong in an early profile (1999, New York Times) and has been repeated many times in the press thereafter. I'm going to guess that at least some mentions in the press were reporters following our reports, but at least some of them pre-date us carrying the error. My view is that we should omit the claim on IAR grounds, while I encourage the subject to get a correction in a reliable source. In the meantime others are saying that we simply must carry it due to it being in reliable sources. I think that's not right. ] (]) 15:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:31, 5 January 2025

Misplaced Pages noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:

    Notes for volunteers
    How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?
    You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
    More ways to help
    Today's random unreferenced BLP
    Reijo Mäki (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 5 Jan 2025 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)
    Centralized discussion




    Martin_Short

    This text under Personal Life in the Martin Short biography is poorly fact checked. Note refers to gossip regarding Shorts love life. Should be removed entirely.

    Source: https://decider.com/2024/10/24/meryl-streep-martin-short-only-murders-in-the-building-romance/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMBLE (talk • contribs) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    It has been removed. Decider is not an appropriate source to put weight on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    This user doesn’t exist anymore, and the Meryl Streep article says the same thing, plus if you actually look into it there’s a lot more supporting it than just that one article so there’s no reason it can’t be included. That article actually includes quotes from the showrunner himself in fact. EvaSofie (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Have any reliable sources actually reported that it is a confirmed relationship? The most recent reliable sources seem to be framing it as a rumour (), which fails WP:NOTGOSSIP in addition to BLP sourcing concerns. -- Patar knight - /contributions 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Even the Decider source says "Short and Streep have not publicly commented on their relationship status". Tabloids are expected to pursue rumors and innuendo; Misplaced Pages is not. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    We now have new accounts trying to edit-war the material into the article. I have reverted again, but will protect if this carries on. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Edit War on Trump

    IP User should keep discussion on Donald Trump talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    So it has come to this hasn't it? This incident all started on November 5, 2024 when Donald Trump won the recent election. Following this, an edit war ensued. This occurs in the section after the 2020 United States presidential election in which Trump lost. People keep editing the title, changing it to "Interpresidency", "First post-presidency", or most recently "Post-presidency". I see this is taking place on a Extended confirmed article. I request it be upgraded to an appropriate level. 2601:483:400:1CD0:7D95:FF0A:CEC6:A8AD (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Care to point to exactly what / where / when? And really, don't bring this sort of thing here unless absolutely necessary and if it can't be resolved on the relevant talk pages. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, you see, I tried to do it on the individual talk page but it didn't exactly work out so well. More names were put in as suggestions. This occurs in the section currently called "Post-presidency (2021-present)" as well as the relative talk page. However this name has been changed multiple times until being changed back. As for the when, Pinpointing it exactly is not feasible. The last time an edit occured in this war was sometime before December 26, 15:00 CDT. To examine the talk page go near to the bottom till you see the discussion "Edit War". I thank you for your time. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I imagine, when he takes office on January 20, 2025 - the section-in-question will be named differently. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Eternal Blue (album)

    This article is an FAC. In my review, I brought up a question that hopefully can get resolved here. A band member is cited from this interview for a statement about another band member - specifically, for the statement that the rest of the band met the band member only two days before touring. I've understood that generally, interviews, and especially statements from the interview subjects, are considered primary sources. And in this case, the interview is also by the publisher of the publication, so even the secondary coverage is essentially self-published. My question is, is citing interview statements from band members about fellow band members a violation of BLP policy?

    Depending on the outcome here, I also will have a follow-up question about a different set of articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Well, we'd want to make sure we're following WP:PRIMARY. Is there something particularly contentious or controversial about the claim being made? If not, then we're fine to use it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, it's a primary source, but the statement about him isn't negative or contentious, and it's clear that it is "According to LaPlante...", so I don't see an issue here. Problems with interviews being primary sources generally occur when they are being used as criteria for notability, which isn't the case here, or when there are disputes about their truthfulness or authenticity, which also isn't the case. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    As you (3family6) know, there's a great deal of disagreement about what "self-published" should mean for WP's purposes, what the consensus practice is for considering something self-published, and whether the current definition reflects that practice. I haven't been around long enough to assess whether using this is/isn't consistent with the consensus practice. As best I can tell, the current definition of self-published + the exceptions are primarily intended to keep editors from using sources that are less likely to be reliable for the content in question, especially for BLP content. This source seems reliable for the fact that LaPlante said it, but uncertain re: whether it's reliable for the content of her statement.
    Seems to me that whether or not one considers this "self-published," policies prevent the use of this source for this content. If you treat it as self-published, it either fails as BLPSPS (if you consider it as self-published by the interviewer/owner), or it fails BLPSELFPUB restriction #2 (if you consider interview responses as essentially self-published by the interviewee, though I think that interpretation is problematic). If you treat it as non-self-published, then because it's a primary source, WP:BLPPRIMARY is in play, which says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." A quick search didn't turn up any secondary source discussing this particular content, and if it did, there would be no need to rely on the interview for this specific info.
    Can you get consensus here to include it anyway, since it isn't contentious and the claim is attributed? The first two responses suggest "yes." But, it also doesn't seem like important content for this article (perhaps more DUE on the Spiritbox article, though it's not included there). I think it could easily be omitted, in which case the issue is moot. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Black Kite, thank you. That's where I would fall on the issue, and where historically I've always fallen, but I wanted to see if my view is reflective of consensus or not.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Richard Stanley (director)

    Some experienced eyes would be helpful here for a long running BLP dispute between mostly IPs and new editors. Some watchlisting would probably be helpful as well. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    On it. GiantSnowman 13:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I appreciate it, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think the IP needs blocking. SPA and edit warring. GiantSnowman 14:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've warned them about the edit warring and directed them to the talk page. Hopefully that'll have been a productive use of my time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The disputed entry impacts on an active libel and defamation case. It seems to me this entry has been deliberately edited to suppress public knowledge of the recent libel action. The amendment from 'abuse allegation' to 'abuse allegations' clearly implies more than one public accuser, a further distortion of the truth that seems highly prejudicial to Mr Stanley (a living person) and directly impacts upon his livelihood. The source cited for these amendments, screenanarchy.com, is a blog entry and, in my opinion, not a valid primary source. I believe these amendments have been made by Finland based journalists promoting a tabloid 'documentary' 'SHADOWLAND', that seeks to exploit this case for financial gain. 79.200.21.192 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Once again - this is matter for the article talk page. You have already been specifically directed to that discussion. This is now becoming a competence issue. GiantSnowman 16:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    In the revision that stands right now, the allegations and response occupy a section of their own, and have two whole paragraphs of prose. WP:UNDUE? WP:NOTNEWS? I'm not convinced that any particular prose dedicated to this topic is encyclopedically noteworthy, especially without a resolution or other events indicating an enduring biographical significance. It would be a shame to actually wait ten years to see, but I don't think it clearly passes that test yet. JFHJr (㊟) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Frank Pando

    WP:NAC: the appropriate forum is now the AfD discussion. Further talk page and BLPN concerns should be voiced there. This is no longer the place. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The article in question is about my uncle, Frank Pando, who has requested that I delete the article written about him. As evidenced in both his article's talk page and by a notification on that actual page, there are plenty of problems with both sourcing and notability. I have tried to put up a suggested deletion notice, but it was promptly taken down by some user who said that the subject's request to delete the article is invalid. I strongly urge my fellow editors to take heed of the notability/citation concerns, as well as my uncle's request, and kindly delete this page. Crazy Horse 1876 (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    I have started the Articles For Deletion discussion which could lead to it being deleted. You will find the discussion here, and are welcome to join in (though it may help if you read that first link to understand the process first). -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    May I ask what he objects to? Skimming through the article, it's just largely looks like a laundry list of roles he's played. I do t see anything particularly contentious or controversial... Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Apparently, the subject may object to his mere presence here. I wouldn't have any gripe with that. Living people of marginal notability certainly have the right not to be here. He might still be mentioned on articles where he played a role. But not a marginal standalone biography online that anyone can edit willy nilly. When you're a private figure, it's a due consideration. JFHJr (㊟) 02:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    AfDs and BLPs

    Those watching this page may be interested in this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#NOINDEX AfDs on living people. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Problematic redirect from one BLP to another: Rabea Massaad

    WP:NAC: Resolved and recommended for closure. JFHJr (㊟) 05:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rob Chapman and Rabea Massaad do not appear to be the same person, and no redirect between them should exist without any explanation at the redirect target, Rob Chapman (guitarist). The AfD of Rabea Massaad specifies a different redirect, and through a series of deletions and a double redirect removal, we're now in this mess. So after a PROD by another user has already been denied on *cough* *cough* procedural grounds, can we finally rectify this situation? The easiest way I can see is still simply deleting the Rabea Massaad page (without prejudice). Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    WP:RFD looks like your forum. JFHJr (㊟) 05:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify, Rob Chapman and Rabea Massaad are separate guitarists who once played together in a band called Dorje. The 2017 AfD for Massad resulted in a redirect to Dorje, and the 2023 AfD for Dorje resulted in a redirect to Chapman. Massad has a fairly robust online presence and is therefore a plausible search term. I mentioned him briefly at Rob Chapman (guitarist)#Dorje and edited the redirect to go to that section. By the way, Chapman and Massad are still close associates but the band is defunct. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    I added a reference verifying Massaad's role in Dorje. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    So now we have a section of Rob Chapman's article which serves as the main Misplaced Pages mention of the band Dorje. There is also a redirect Dorje (band) which goes there. My recent edit updates the redirect Dorje (band) to point directly to the section of Chapman's article that mentions the band. Hopefully this is not a controversial edit. Now that Cullen328 has improved the referencing, I don't see anything else to be done, and suggest that this thread be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you to all for fixing this and not directing me to forum shop. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:55C6:F066:7215:3C99 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pretendian

    Full of BLP and NPOV vio's, unencyclopedic language and unreliable sources. I removed a couple.   Much of article reads like it was copied from a blog post or tabloid, and lack of proof of Native ancestry (and/or or not being enrolled in a tribe) is repeatedly conflated with lying. --Middle 8 • (s)talk 18:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    ... and the two diffs above got reverted , restoring some really poor prose and sources. This is a very sensitive topic area and I don't want to bite anyone, but clearly the article needs more experienced editorial eyes and existing editors need to review WP:BLP (and hopefully realize the difference between editing an encyclopedia and human rights advocacy). --Middle 8 • (s)talk 11:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Unless a published reliable source specifically describes the person as a "pretendian", they should not be on that notable examples list at all. BLP is clear on this - any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    One problem is that while the article is about people who falsely claimed Native American heritage, its title is from a pejorative slang term, which it begins by defining. Perhaps a change of title along with moving information about the term Pretendian further down would help.
    Listing any notable people who have pretended to have native heritage is a recipe for imbalance and unwieldy length. Instead, we should find sources specifically about the topic to determine which persons are significant to the topic. It's more important to understand why this happens, how frequent it is and what damage it causes than to provide a hit list of perpetrators.
    TFD (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's more important to understand why this happens, how frequent it is and what damage it causes than to provide a hit list of perpetrators. Well said! Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • The title strikes me as violating WP:POVTITLE; I'm skeptical that the term is common enough to pass WP:COMMONNAME for the phenomenon. If the article is going to cover the phenomenon and not the neologism (and currently, most sources in it don't use the term), it needs to be renamed to a descriptive title. The hard part is coming up with one. --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    A lengthy requested move discussion already occurred and nothing has changed with the term to warrant a title change in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pretendian#Requested_move_21_December_2021  oncamera  (talk page) 16:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    • It seems fairly evident that the neologism and the phenomenon are both notable, but we shouldn't be covering the phenomenon under the neologism: I don't see evidence that "pretendian" is the dominant descriptive term even for high-profile cases of falsely claiming native ancestry. And it goes without saying that an absence of evidence of native ancestry is insufficient to list an individual on that page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    I mean, if the article is titled "Pretendian", the only sources that could justify putting someone on the page is a source using the term "Pretendian" specifically. It's a sufficiently emotive neologism that we can't really WP:SYNTH someone into that category - any source that doesn't use the word "Pretendian" is useless. If we want a list of BLPs who fall under the broader concept, we would need a separate article for that; we can't label people with a neologism without a specific source using the term. --Aquillion (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    That discussion is three years old, but more importantly, it doesn't address the WP:BLP / WP:LABEL issue. We can have an article on a neologism, absolutely; we cannot label individuals with a negative neologism unless we have a source using that precise word to refer to them. Any living person named in that article must have at least one high-quality source calling them a "Pretendian", using that exact word. Anyone who doesn't have that source backing up the fact that they have been called a "Pretendian", specifically, needs to be removed immediately until / unless that source is found - sources that use other words are useless (and WP:OR / WP:SYNTH in context.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    The term "pretendian" is used frequently in news sources (some Canadian news outlets have dedicated reporters on a dedicated "pretendian beat". The term is used in academia (Google Scholar with Indigenous, Google Scholar with Native, to weed out the Spanish-language discussions). Indigenous identity fraud is used but not nearly as often. If you want to suggest a name change, the talk page of Talk:Pretendian would be the place to do it. Yuchitown (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    In order for a BLP to be included in the notables examples list though, the derogatory term "pretendian" needs to be used frequently and widely published in high-quality reliable sources describing that individual as such, in order for the BLP to be included in that section per BLP and LABEL. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with Isaidnoway, Aquillion and others. It's one thing to have an article on the concept and under that name. That might very well be justified if there are sufficient sources referring to it. However it's another to list living persons as pretendians. That needs sufficient sources establishing it's a common enough term used to describe this person. These sources needs to clearly use the term and not simply say other things such as the person has claimed Native American ancestry but it appears to be false. Likewise in others on the person, it's fine to mention controversies over any claims, but they should not be called or categorised as pretendians without sources. Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's not a matter of what the article is named; the problem is WP:LABEL. For an emotive, negative term like "pretendian", we need, at the absolute bare minimum, at least one source actually describing someone as such using that precise word. Going "well these sources accusing them of indigenous identity fraud are essentially the same thing" is WP:SYNTH; in other contexts it might not be enough to worry about but in the context of applying a highly emotive label to a living person it's unacceptable. We can have an article on the term, but we can't use it as the general list for people accused of indigenous identity fraud because of that issue; all we can list there are people called "pretendian" specifically, using that exact word. --Aquillion (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's valid. Some people have been described as "pretendians" in published, secondary sources. I'd be fine with a separate list for Indigenous identity fraud since that's a more neutral descriptive term that is increasingly being used in scholarly writing. I've been slammed IRL but can find citations in the near future. Yuchitown (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is a complicated issue (especially from a BLP perspective) and it seems like a lot of the long form sources note just how complicated an issue this is. I think that others may be right in saying that there may be multiple overlapping notable and perhaps less notable topics here which can be organized in a number of ways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Vinod Sekhar

    I'd appreciate it if some of you BLP experts could have a look at this article. I pruned it some already and found a curious mix of promotional language and possibly overstated accusations. Note: I just blocked an edit warrior from whitewashing it. Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've had a small prune and clean up. GiantSnowman 10:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Harald Walach

    The "Controversy" section for this guy needs more eyes, I think. The first sentence merely states that he has "advocated for revision of the concept of evidence-based medicine, promoting holistic and homeopathic alternatives in his publications." and then links to a WP:PRIMARY source showing him writing about these topics. What's the controversy here?

    The last paragraph I removed because the RS link provided did not appear to say what was claimed in the paragraph (when I read the translation), but the author did insinuate a "scandal" not directly related to Walach, though. But it was reverted by @Hob Gadling who said I "don't know what I'm talking about" and that I'm "whitewashing" Walach. So, I'm hoping to get another opinion on this. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Finn McKenty

    I would like to bring some attention to this BLP, as there is a particular claim that keeps getting reinstated, often with poor sourcing (including, so far, a Wordpress blog and WP:THENEEDLEDROP, which as self-published sources are unsuitable for claims about living persons). @FMSky: has been adding the content with the aforementioned sources, along with, as of writing this, two sources on the current revision I am uncertain about, morecore.de () and metalzone (). I can't find discussions of either source at WP:RSN, so I would like to bring this here to get consensus on the sources and the material they support, rather than continuing to remove the material per WP:3RRBLP. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Its fine, he made these comments. Nothing controversial about it. Move on --FMSky (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please see WP:NOTTRUTH. Even if he made those comments, they need reliable sources verifying them (i.e., not self-published sources). Simply put, Wordpress blogs and people's self-published YouTube videos cannot be used to support claims about living people. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes here are 2 https://www.morecore.de/news/finn-mckenty-the-punk-rock-mba-verlaesst-youtube-ich-habe-es-nur-wegen-des-geldes-gemacht/ & https://www.metalzone.fr/news/208728-finn-mckenty-the-punk-rock-mba-aucun-interet-musique/
    We can also put in the video of him uttering these words as it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF --FMSky (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think citing the video itself as a primary source would probably be the best option here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Bonnie Blue (actress)

    This biography of a pseudonymic pornographic actress (primarily notable for work on OnlyFans) was created on December 29 by Meena and is heavily sourced to tabloids and tabloidesque websites. Some of the sources don't support what they are cited for (e.g. the two cited for her attending a particular school, and misrepresentation of sources on whether she's from Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire). The date of birth is unsourced and the real name is sourced to a National World article that cites it to the Daily Mirror. I have tried an emergency initial BLP cutback; Launchballer has tried a more severe cutback; the original has been restored by an IP and by Tamzin Kuzmin with the most recent revert alleging vandalism and misogyny in the edit summary. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    I went through that article and yeeted everything I could find that either did not check out or was sourced to an inappropriate source. I suggest draftifying.--Launchballer 20:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    ...and it's all been restored (again) by Tamzin Kuzmin. Who also happened to remove this initial report, replacing it with a report about an article they've never edited. Hmmm. Woodroar (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Metacomment. The reverting user was blocked. The block notice implicated WP:SOCK. So I removed the Oli London post here, but it's available at the diff above by Woodroar in case an editor in good standing cares to clean it up, talkpage it, and/or follow up here. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Poorly sourced Russian spies/ex-spies poisoning claim of Bashar al-Assad

    Bashar al-Assad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BLP attention is needed. On the talk page I have warned about the Russian spies'/ex-spies' Telegram claim of Bashar al-Assad being poisoned being too poorly sourced. Probably because of al-Assad's status as a fugitive wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity and as an ex-dictator, few people seem to be bothered with leaving the rumour in place, despite the low quality of the sourcing that all point to a viral rumour based on the General SVR Telegram channel. The WP:WEASELly "may have been" and "it was reported that" seem to be seen as sufficient to justify propagating the rumour, without attribution to General SVR as the source of the claim. After half a day, none of the more regular mainstream media sources appear to have said anything about this, including independent reliable Russian sources such as Meduza and The Moscow Times. Currently there are two sentences with the rumour (one in the lead, one in the body of the article). Diffs:

    Boud (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I see, thanks for letting me know about it. Richie1509 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    See also: Claims of Vladimir Putin's incapacity and death#October 2023 claims of death from the same source. Boud (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for clearing up this point, i was not aware of it. I will be careful in the future BasselHarfouch (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Joe Manchin

    Today we have an unnecessary edit war on BLP outgoing Sen. Joe Manchin (and perhaps many other articles this morning) about the addition of infobox data which is factually incorrect at the time of insertion (, diff]). Nobody is arguing the data, just the timing of the edit. While User:Therequiembellishere is one person jumping the gun, they are a longtime contributor here. Their position should be taken in good faith, IMHO. Also in my opinion, these edits are technically BLP violations because they impart incorrect information. Under policy, such clear BLP violations must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (bolding from the original) by ANY editor. This sort of thing might lead to an edit war in which everybody is trying to do the right thing. Note: the page was correctly edited for the change; one click would have changed it at the proper time of transition.

    1. Does this sort of thing happen every opening of congress?
    2. Isn't this a potential future problem for BLPN, since edit wars on this are built-in to the apparent excitement of awaiting the actual moment of transition?
    3. I'm inclined towards timed page protection, but page protection is not normally done preemptively. Here's the page today literally under attack for BLP violations. If we know this is common for transitions of administration, isn't this an exception?

    While this noticeboard doesn't normally discuss policy, should we be aware of such disruption in advance? Making it harder for sooner editors like Therequiembellishere who feel... Well, I'll let them make their own affirmative position here if they wish. BusterD (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Page protections is the only way. IMHO, most editors who do these premature changes every two years, don't actually realize it's too early. They seem to assume once mid-night occurs, start updating. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I raise this issue not to cause a problem today. I'm not trying to unduly embarrass any editor for taking a position I don't agree with. On the other hand, we have established BLP policy the hard way through sometimes brutal disagreements about how to carefully calibrate opposing positions based on good faith argument. I trust the BLP policy because we earned it. We don't need to re-learn these lessons. But we could discuss how to proceed next time. BusterD (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Under policy, it would be within the responsibility of any editor to revert these edits and report the editor to this board. But for my starting this conversation, it would be within my remit to revert the edits, fully protect the page and warn Therequiembellishere (and others). I haven't done that. I want the discussion about what to do next time. BusterD (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I understand, this is for the next time around when terms end & begin. PS - I should note, that the premature changes in the BLPs tend to have a ripple effect on related pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've said everything I want on this on Manchin's talk. It's just a lot of pedantry by a few editors with obsessive fealty and exactitude that doesn't meaningfully help anything or anyone, least of all a casual reader. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Verifiability is not "pedantry". Members aren't sworn in until noon EST, correct? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can understand changes being made about 1 or 2 hrs before the actual event, when dealing with so many bios. But 12 hrs before the event, is too early. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Obvious BLP violations are not pedantry. Those edits added provably incorrect information. Can User:Therequiembellishere provide a policy-based answer why those edits do not violate BLP guidance? This is just bad acting under the cover of labelling others. Do they not see that? BusterD (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Therequiembellishere's response here demonstrates we actually have a problem, at least with that user, whose reply here is non-responsive to the issue. BLP policy does indeed require obsessive fealty and exactitude, as long experience with this board has shown. As my OP suggested, any user might justifiably have reverted Therequiembellishere right into 3RR and immediate blocking, just by merely diligently following policy. Therequiembellishere might bookmark this thead for when it happens to them two years from now. I could have done it this morning, but instead chose to create this thread and invite the user to comment. Would preemptive full protection be a reasonable solution to such flippant disruption? BusterD (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I oppose pre-emptive full protection. I strongly support an immediate sitewide block of any repeat offenders, with the block to expire at noon Washington, DC time on the swearing in day. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm with Therequiembellishere on this: a prediction, especially one based on clear US law, is not a false statement or a BLP violation. Joe Manchin's term does end on January 3rd, 2025, and that was still true on January 2nd, 2025. It's, in fact, been true for over a month now. The only way it could end on a different day would be if Joe Manchin had died before then, which would obviously be a BLP violation to assume.
    (Unlike Therequiembellishere I don't even think the opposition is pedantry. Pedants are technically correct; to say that the end of Joe Manchin's term was not January 3rd before January 3rd is not even technically correct. It's just false.) Loki (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    IMO the issue is not the term ending time but the claim Joe Manchin served as senator etc when he was still serving as a senator at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    For further clarity. I think our readers reasonably understand our articles might be outdated. So if the article says Joe Manchin is serving and his term ended a few hours ago or even a few days ago that's fine. I mean in other cases it's reasonable to expect them to even be weeks or months out of date. But if out article says Joe Manchin served, I think they reasonable would expect he is no longer serving. As I understand it, there's no more issue. But if this reoccurs, I'm not sure Cullen328's solution is correct. I mean if some admin is volunteering to mollycoddle each repeat offender then okay I guess. But otherwise the norm is we expect editors to obey our policy and guidelines by themselves without needing handholding in the form of continual blocks everytime something comes up to stop them. Therefore I'd suggest either an admin subject them to escalating blocks quickly leading up to an indefinite if they repeat perhaps under BLP or AP2; or we do it via community bans. While I'd personally be fine with a site ban, it might be more palatable to the rest of the community if we instead do it as a topic ban on making such changes. With a clear topic ban, hopefully an admin will be more willing to subject them to escalating blocks. Even if not, I think the community would be much more willing to siteban such editors if they repeat after a community topic ban. As a final comment, I also don't see why editor feels it's something so urgent that they need to do it 12 hours in advance. This almost seems one of those lame edits we sometimes get at the ANs resulting from the apparent desire of an editor to be first or get the credit so we have editors creating "drafts" with basically zero content long before there's anything to write about then some other editor is sick of this editor doing this and so ignores the draft and makes their own. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    @BusterD: maybe a RFC or something is required, to establish how to handle future premature changes to such bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Serious BLP vios in Gambino crime family

    This article is riddled with serious BLP vios. I tried tagging them, but there are so many I would have to carpet bomb the page with CN tags. This page needs urgent attention from any editors with experience and/or sources pertaining to organized crime. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    P.S. I've taken a look at most of the articles on North American mafia groups and almost all have serious BLP issues. I've added "Category:Possibly living people" with its BLP Edit Notice to all of the pages excepting groups that have been defunct for more than thirty years. These pages are in rough shape and a lot of material needs to be either cited or deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Taylor Lorenz BLP issues and harassment of subject based on article contents

    The Taylor Lorenz article has an unusual history in the sense that the contents of the article have led to harassment of Lorenz in the past, or other issues impacting her financially.

    Most recently it was regarding her date of birth and Misplaced Pages choosing to use a date range, with the allegations being that it was Lorenz choosing to keep her birthdate off of the Internet or being deceitful.

    1. FreeBeacon
    2. TimesOfIndia
    3. Lorenz Substack
    4. SoapCentral
    5. RedState
    6. Lorenz BlueSky
    7. Twitchy
    8. FoxNews
    9. BlueSky
    10. FreeBeacon

    There have also seemingly been issues according to Lorenz with errors in the article causing her lost business opportunities See here

    "This insane 100% false story is affecting my brand deals and some partnership stuff I have in the works for 2025, so I really need it corrected ASAP!!!"

    An addition of a 'Harassment and coordinated attacks' section was added in August of last year, with additional information being added shortly after regarding a Twitter suspension. I moved the text around recently in an attempt at a more neutral article that was quickly reverted. A TalkPage discussion followed shortly after but there hasn't been a policy based consensus.

    My question- should we have a devoted harassment section included for someone who has been harassed based on her Misplaced Pages profile previously? It seems like WP:AVOIDVICTIM comes into play with directly focusing attention on her being a victim and could lead to further harassment by highlighting it with equal weight as her career section.

    Personally I think the material could be presented more neutrally per WP:STRUCTURE but wanted to get a wider opinion.

    There is also a discussion currently going on if we should include her year of birth here. Awshort (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Categories: