Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:34, 14 January 2025

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

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.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

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)

I've had a read of the Pretendians Talk page, having previously raised some concerns re BLP sourcing, and I share the concerns that the term 'Pretendian' is being used as a neutral descriptor. It's clear from the various discussions on the Talk page that it is a contentious term. I would also be in favour of moving some of the content to a list named something akin to 'Indigenous Identity Fraud' and reframing the Pretendians page as an explanation of the neologism.

I'm concerned about some of these BLP issues being raised previously on the Talk page and dismissed in each case - e.g. here, here and here. It looks to me that this page may have multiple BLP violations that need further attention. Whynotlolol (talk) 09:24, 8 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)

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:

• Adding the rumour:
  • 08:50, 2 January 2025 by BasselHarfouch source = WP:THESUN
  • 18:49, 2 January 2025 by Bri source = The Economic Times
  • 02:04, 3 January 2025 by Richie1509 source = The Economic Times
  • 04:24, 3 January 2025 by Geraldshields11 source = WP:NEWSWEEK
• Removing individual instances of the rumour:
  • 02:14, 3 January 2025 by me (I didn't realise that other occurrences remained)
  • 04:33, 3 January 2025 by Nikkimaria

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)

Dear @Boud: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I understand how important it is to maintain high standards for sourcing on Misplaced Pages. When I added the reference to Newsweek, I did so in good faith, as I recall it being a respected publication during my upbringing. I wasn't aware that the community's perception of the source has shifted over time, and I appreciate you pointing this out. If we had talked about it first, I would have gladly reverted it myself. Collaboration and communication are key to building a better encyclopedia, and I value the chance to learn and improve. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention, and I'll be more careful about vetting sources in the future. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help address this matter. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:27, 13 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)

Technically speaking, if you are still serving you also have served. So it's not technically speaking false, although this really is pedantry and I would not say it's the most true possible statement.

I'm still not convinced it's a BLP violation, though. Loki (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the argument is being made @LokiTheLiar:, that editing in someone is no longer holding an office, when they still are & somebody has assumed office, when they haven't yet, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 7 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)

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) 04:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Fixed incorrect diff

@Awshort it looks like the paragraph below got moved past your signature, and therefor appears orphaned.

Delectopierre (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Removing the harassment section furthers the narrative that there are no coordinated harassment campaigns against her, and acts to diminish the effect those coordinated campaigns have wrought upon her. Generally speaking, victims of harassment don't want what they've gone through to be diminished.

I am unaware of any evidence that discussing harassment on wiki for her, or in general, leads to further harassment. If that evidence exists, I'd certainly be wiling to change my stance.

Delectopierre (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't take a stance on supporting a narrative for something - we neutrally present both sides of an argument based on their prevalence in reliable sources; nothing more and nothing less. Our only priority is making sure it's presented neutrally, above all other content policies. In essence, we don't take a side and if something reads as though it is biased to one side it should be rewritten.

Regarding coordinated harassment - If an incident regarding a public figure is significant it will have received plenty of third party sources reporting on it. I spent a few hours looking over sources for anything mentioning her harassment being coordinated and third party coverage supporting it and came up almost empty on third party coverage. And the main source of her mentioning harassment was her ,while on her book tour.

I did find that Lorenz mentioned being harassed in several deleted tweets. The only two sources I could find in support of anything involving the words "coordinated harassment campaign" or similar were from Lorenz discussing the Libs Of Tik Tok backlash (It’s eye opening to see how sophisticated & vicious these coordinated attacks have become.,

1. IWMF organization post the day after the Carlson incident (Carlson’s commentary is a deliberate, deeply dangerous effort to mobilize harassment toward Lorenz. which included a quoted Tweet from Lorenz stating she had suffered from a smear campaign
2. Media Manipulation brief by her friend Emily Dreyfuss Lorenz is a frequent target of coordinated harassment campaigns that include being swatted, stalked, which would be a WP:COISOURCE due to the friendship, and more than likely not considered a reliable source due to no fact checking on a brief or editorial oversight and a lot of it is opinion based.

We present information neutrally and let readers come to their own conclusion. "The aim is to inform, not influence."

Going by "we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." in WP:DUE, there doesn't seem to be support for her harassment being considered coordinated.

You had previously listed sources in support of the above. I mentioned both IWMF and the Media Manipulation brief from your list above, but wanted to cover the other two as well.

1. TheInformation link - No stranger to digital harassment, doxxing or the dangers of online celebrity, Lorenz Does not support the above.
2. Forbes link - Right-Wing Figures Attack Journalist Taylor Lorenz For Revealing Creator Of ‘Libs Of TikTok’ Fails WP:RSHEADLINES.

If you have other sources in support of it then I am open to reconsidering my position. My main concern is just presenting the text neutrally and if there could be further issues for the article subject that could arise from having a dedicated harassment section. It's a low possibility, but I also never thought I would see a range for a year of birth used to harass someone so that was a first.

Awshort (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You asked a question

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:AVOIDVICTIMcomes 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.

and I replied to it.

Delectopierre (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I see that. I thought you had replied to work towards a policy based consensus since this was also in the above A TalkPage discussion followed shortly after but there hasn't been a policy based consensus., and since it was a section you added I also assumed you wanted to address the neutrality issues.

Awshort (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Delectopierre I believe you meant your post, but I wasn't sure. I attempted a fix that looked good on the post preview but if this was not what you meant please feel free to revert my edit and accept my apologies.

Awshort (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You're right. My mistake. That's what I get for editing late at night. Delectopierre (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on the scope of WP:BLPSPS

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Self-published claims about other living persons about the scope of WP:BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 02:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

List of pornographic performers by decade

• List of pornographic performers by decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of pornographic performers by decade is a remarkable article in that it has existed for 20 years and yet, if I were to follow WP:BLPREMOVE to the letter right now, I would have to cut the article down to its first sentence, the section headings, and a single see-also. Saying "X is a pornographic performer" is, obviously, a contentious claim, and as such every entry needs its own citation; it's not enough to rely on the articles as their own de facto citations, as is the tolerated practice for noncontroversial lists like List of guitarists. This is all the more the case because the definition of "pornographic performer" is subjective. With help from Petscan, I've found the following people on the list who are not described in their articles as pornographic performers: Fiona Richmond, Amouranth, F1NN5TER, Kei Mizutani, Uta Erickson, Isabel Sarli, Fumio Watanabe, Louis Waldon, Nang Mwe San, Piri, Megan Barton-Hanson, Aella (writer). Many (all?) of them are sex workers of some sort, so in each case, there may be a reliable source that exists that calls them a pornographic performer, but without one, it's a flagrant BLP violation. And if it were just those, I'd remove them and be done with it, but even for the ones whose articles do call them pornographic performers, there's no guarantee of being right. I removed Miriam Rivera from the list after seeing that an IP had removed the mentions of porn in her article, which had indeed been sourced to a press release about a fictionalized depiction of her life. No, each of these entries needs an individual citation appearing on the list article so that the claims can be judged.

So, there are about 650 entries, and we know at least some are questionable, and we cannot assume that any of the rest are correct. What do we do? Again, the letter-of-BLP answer here is to remove the unsourced items, but that would leave literally nothing. The only two citations in the whole thing are to search pages on two non-RS porn databases. So at that point we might as well apply WP:BLPDELETE. Another solution would be to find sources for, I don't know, two or three people in each heading, just so it's not empty, remove everything else, and stick {{incomplete list}} there. A third option is AfD. Does anyone have any ideas?

P.S. I haven't even looked at other lists of pornographic performers. Are they all like this? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a solution to this @Tamzin, but the first name I looked at was Isabel Sarli. Her article references her full frontal appearance and describes it as sexploitation. Sexploitation films are not pornographic films. I can't see any mention of pornographic acting in her article? This is a problem. Knitsey (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing some spot-checking, Kōji Wakamatsu is described in his article as a director of pink films but not as an actor – and it does not seem as though pink films are necessarily pornographic; Harry S. Morgan is categorised as a porn actor but the text of the article does not seem to support this. Clearly there's a problem here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, yes, per WP:BLP each LP on this list should have a decent ref (better than Internet Adult Film Database, see ), and it wouldn't hurt the others either. I'm slightly reminded of a complaint I made at Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_21#Notable_Holocaust_deniers. It's not the same, but it's still sensitive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Btw, per List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films and List of actors in gay pornographic films, it seems they're not all like that, but List of British pornographic actors lists people without WP-articles, my knee-jerk reaction is that that's not good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

List of British pornographic actors most seem to be referenced using "International Adult Film Database" which is user generated. Imdb for born actors. Knitsey (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_British_pornographic_actors#People_without_WP-articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I thought we'd dealt with this before and it was no longer a problem. I'm sure in previous discussions we're generally agrees such lists should only contain notable individuals with articles i.e. no black links or red links (if an editor believes someone is notable they need to create the article first). I thought we'd also agreed to strictly require inline citations when adding names regardless of what the individual articles say. I couldn't find many of the previous discussions though but did find we seem to have a lot more of these lists in the past. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of a few circumstances in which pornographic actors faced serious obstacles in their lives after leaving the industry and tried hard to separate themselves from their prior career. I would hope, in these cases, we respect their wishes and just leave them off. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Depending on situation, we might or we might not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My main concern is for people who have explicitly expressed that they no longer want to be public people, being honest. Those who have struggled to transition to non-pornographic acting, music, etc. is less of my concern. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That's understandable but it runs into issues with WP:PUBLICFIGURE where editors think that once someone is a public figure, it is forever.

Recently there was I believe the son of a lady who had appeared in Playboy a long time ago who had asked for her article to be removed on BLPN. The specifics that I remember are vague, but essentially she had been a Playmate one year and editors had built an article for her even though she was a relatively private person other than the fact she was in Playboy in the early 80's. The family member had suggested that the article basically loomed over her head and caused harm to her reputation since it was something she did once 30+ years ago and distanced herself from almost immediately. I can't say i disagree that in cases like that, there shouldn't be an article.

Awshort (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that specific case but that is precisely the sort of circumstance under which I think a private person's right to privacy should be weighed more important than Misplaced Pages completionism. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Richard Desmond per . Other end of the scale, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Nil Einne You may be thinking of this discussion which you commented on.

Awshort (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it was really that, although I did forget about it so thanks for reminding me. One of the issues with that list is since it was such a high profile case I felt it likely there would at least be secondary source coverage, and also as pornographic appearances go, I feel being Playmate is a lot less controversial than other stuff; so while it was bad, I didn't feel it quite as severe as most of the other stuff we're doing or have been doing. I was thinking of older discussions probably especially the RfC below. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know where to get sources for this. I would suggest doing as you say, and cutting every non-verifiable person from the page. Anyone interested can hunt down acceptable sources for each entry. GeogSage 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Given the lack of referencing and the entries included in error, pointed out above, then I would be in favour of removing every unreferenced entry on the list. If that leaves literally nothing, well - AFD. If somebody really wants this information, well, categories exist. Bastun 14:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I would support this as well, and honestly would probably still vote to delete a list with only the referenced entries if it were brought at AfD. A list page doing the job of one or several category pages and nothing more has no purpose. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 13:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Would a blank-and-soft-redirect to Category:Pornographic film actors be a good solution here? That way the list is still in the history for anyone who wants to restore it with references. The "by decade" might be misleading in that case, but we could first reverse the hard redirect from List of pornographic performers, which this probably should have been at anyways. Another option would be a list of lists at Lists of pornographic performers and redirecting there. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think your first suggestion is a good idea, I'd support that for sure. Definitely less favorable to a list of lists though. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 20:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• I knew we had a lengthy RfC/Discussion about this subject matter, it just took me a while to find it though – Unreferenced lists and porn stars RFC, and also this AfD as well. Discussions are ten years old, but I don't think anything in the lengthy close of the RfC has changed. I was one of the volunteers who helped add refs to this article → List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films, which if I recall correctly, was the impetus for the RfC. Good luck, sourcing these types of lists are a massive chore. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  RFC closer said in 2014:

  Q: Should all pre-existing lists of porn performers have a reliable source supporting each entry?

  A: The rough consensus below is that it's always more controversial to call someone a porn performer than to say they're engaged in most other professions. A reliable source should be added for every entry that's challenged or likely to be challenged. But as a concession to the practicalities, editors are asked not to go through the pre-existing lists making large-scale and unilateral challenges, as this will overwhelm the people who maintain these lists with work, and there is a legitimate concern that this is unfair. If you do intend to remove unsourced entries, please proceed at a reasonable, non-disruptive speed dealing with what you judge to be the highest-priority cases first. If you could easily source an entry yourself, then removing it as unsourced is rather unhelpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well, removing ~650 entries after 10 years of the list's maintainers doing nothing to fix this would average out to, what, ~1.2 per week since that RfC? That seems like a reasonable, non-disruptive speed to me. Courtesy ping @S Marshall. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 16:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I do vaguely remember making that close ten years ago. I agree that it's appropriate to implement its outcome in full now.—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I support that. GeogSage 01:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on discussion above, I have redirected the list to Category:Pornographic actors. This way, the content is still there in the history, and can be restored by any editor willing to take the time to dig up the sources. If anyone objects, I'm happy to argue the case at AfD. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

For the interested, Talk:List_of_British_pornographic_actors#People_without_WP-articles is ongoing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Citations are a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. In 2018 (example here), every BLP entry required and had WP:RS citations. Editors at the time considered the requirement to be overkill, and a requirement for an existing WP article supported by good references was deemed sufficient. It was a compromise among editors. Does selectively restoring the sourced 2018 content and then re-adding male, non-binary and new female entries that can be sourced sound like a viable plan to you? • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you consider AVN (magazine) a good enough source in context? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

AVN's newsroom content is considered reliable as noted at WP:RSPS. Caution must be applied in distinguishing hard news reporting from repackaged press releases. If an AVN citation is not good enough, other references that sustain notability for the existing stand-alone WP article can be brought in to overcome any BLP concerns. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

chew chin hin

https://www.ttsh.com.sg/About-TTSH/TTSH-News/Pages/In-Loving-Memory-Prof-Chew-Chin-Hin.aspx

Dr Chew Chin Hin died — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrypttorfan (talk • contribs) 15:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks – I see you have already updated his article. Does anything more need to be done here? There's no need to discuss the deaths of every person who has an article on this noticeboard unless there's a particular issue. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Beyoncé

Looks like Beyoncé fan club president is editing the article and 50.100.81.254 (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, anon! Please talkpage your concerns. When you do, please state with specificity what's wrong with each edit and why (policies/guidelines). Your diffs, in light of the normal editing process, don't indicate a severe BLP violation or failure to find consensus on the talkpage. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

They really could use some help......the article has been dominated by single purpose account for some time and their buddy. As mentioned longstanding problem Moxy🍁 17:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Bob Martinez

There is a derogatory and malicious remark about Former Governor Bob Martinez's wife in his Wiki page biography. It's disgusting to say the least. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.165.250 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It has been removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Kith Meng

This person's Misplaced Pages page is being continually changed to remove any mentions of well-documented accusations against him, often by Misplaced Pages accounts that are named after his companies. Now somebody who seems to be a bit more knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages has removed all of the references to crime and corruption, despite them being widely reported on by the press, claiming that it violates Misplaced Pages's policies to mention any accusations if they haven't been proven in court. But many of the incidents mentioned are verifiable, even if he wasn't actually convicted of a crime over them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khatix (talk • contribs) 07:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI, this is the disputed edit by Georgeee101 who raised BLPCRIME. I guess the question is whether Meng is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE for the allegations to be reinstated. That could be done through a RfC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I don't know what that means. I am not a big Wikipedian, I just do edits to articles about Cambodia. Kith Meng is pretty notorious here, there are countless independent articles about some of his antics. But I noticed that his Misplaced Pages page kept getting updated by somebody whose username was the name of one of his companies. I kept undoing them, which wasn't a big deal because they were mostly unsourced, written in poor English. But these new edits are also sanitizing his Misplaced Pages page, removing all of the corruption and scandals and reading like one of his publicity announcements, but this time by somebody who seems to know what they're doing. clicking undo didn't do anything. I assume he hired a specialist. Khatix (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It means you should start a discussion on the talk page of the article on whether the allegations should be included given the available sources that are reporting on them. If there is not enough participation, you can notify Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cambodia or request a WP:RfC for outside comment. You should also assume good faith on the intentions of other editors and not presume that they are undisclosed paid editors. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I started a discussion and included some different sources from the different media outlets. If nobody responds for awhile, is it alright for me to unilaterally edit it again? I am not sure what the rules are for trying to settle these sorts of disagreements. I used to always change it back when the account removing the corruption allegations was openly his PR team, but I am a bit nervous about being seen as a vandal if I undo it now that it's somebody else. Khatix (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Now that it's been disputed under BLP grounds, you must gain consensus before reinstating them. That is why I encourage you to notify Wikiproject Cambodia of the discussion and then a RfC to gather more participation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sami Zayn

Personal life section frequently vandalized with biased, possibly libelous pro-Israel propaganda citing biased sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.223.20.111 (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish blocked Jayadwaita for a week. Thank you SFR! I'll also watch the page for future unconstructive edits. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Matthew Parish V

• Matthew Parish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Previous discussions: BLPN June 2018, BLPN by subject June 2018, BLPN 2021, BLPN 2023 & subsequent AFD

The subject of this article is a lawyer who has brought legal actions against Misplaced Pages in the past. In June 2018 a rewrite of the article removed significant promotional material and added information on Mr. Parish's then-ongoing legal troubles. An editor claiming to be the subject deleted the legal section entirely, which led to a second thread here and I assume a thorough verification of the material in the article. In 2021 the creator of the article, Pandypandy, raised another thread here about defamatory material in the article; they were subsequently blocked for COI and suspected UPE editing, making legal threats, and logged-out sockpuppetry. The same editor also created Draft:Kuwaiti videos affair, which is the dispute in which Mr. Parish is accused of fraudulent arbitration as described in the biography's legal issues section.

In 2023 a third BLPN thread was raised on behalf of WMF Legal, who requested that editors review the article in light of multiple requests from Mr. Parish to delete it. The BLPN discussion led to the AFD linked above, which closed as no consensus to delete. In the year-and-a-bit since, numerous IP editors and sockpuppets have edited the article to remove selected information from the legal section, or have removed it all at once, while others have added new contentious information which mostly has been removed by more experienced editors. I have semiprotected the page indefinitely.

I would like to request that editors once again review the current article for accuracy, and verify that the information in the article is properly cited to and accurately reflects reliable sources. Some editors in the AFD suggested that perhaps the video affair is notable but the bio is BLP1E, so I'm going to restore the draft so it can be reviewed as well. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Pronouns

A request for assistance: The subject of the article Karen Yeats asked me about the best way to update their article to reflect the fact that they use they/them pronouns. This is clearly attested to on their personal webpage and also can be seen e.g. in (a recent biographical blurb for an invited presentation). Two questions:

1. Is this sourcing sufficient to make the change? (I think yes but I don't edit biographies much so would appreciate confirmation.)
2. Is it normal, when making such a change, to leave a comment in the article (either text or a footnote) indicating that the subject uses they/them? Or just to write it that way and expect that readers can work it out?

Thanks, JBL (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Standard practice is that WP:ABOUTSELF sources are adequate for pronouns, except in rare cases where there's reason to doubt someone's sincerity. Usually, someone's pronouns bear mention in a personal life section, same as other gender and sexuality things. Whether to include an explanatory note on first reference is a matter of stylistic discretion; personally, having written a few articles on nonbinary people, I use an {{efn}} if I expect it to confuse readers (either they/them or surprising binary pronouns like with F1NN5TER). -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Tamzin. Since there is no personal life section of this bio and to stave off possible confusion, I went with an efn; how does look to you? --JBL (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good! Check out {{pronoun pair}} if you want to be pedantic about italics and kerning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Uncontentious but still poorly/not sourced info about a living person

On Chetan Bhagat#author's page (since I can't copy and paste the message, his article is short and you can find the parts on there, it's under the "author" section of career) there are areas where it says "citation needed", but I don't think the material is contentious. Do I still need to remove the material ASAP? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I am personally very strict with unsourced content, regardless of it being contentious or not. Generally, however, if the content has been tagged for a reasonable time and remains unsourced, feel free to remove. GiantSnowman 10:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but how do I find out how long it's been up for, and what counts as a "reasonable time"? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit the article, and you will see the date tag - on Chetan Bhagat they are October 2024, so 3 months. Reasonable time is a judgement call. GiantSnowman 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there at least a rough range for what should count as reasonable time? Weeks? Months? Years? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

42 seconds. Or days. YMMV. JFHJr (㊟) 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

For me, how long to wait to remove depends on the type of content. For example, clearly promotional unsourced content I may just remove without tagging, but other content I may never remove regardless of how long it's been tagged. In this particular article, I would be inclined to remove a sentence such as "It became India's fastest-selling book of its time" pretty quickly. However, a sentence such as "The story was adapted by film director Rajkumar Hirani into a film named 3 Idiots starring Aamir Khan, R. Madhavan, Sharman Joshi, and Kareena Kapoor" with blue wikilinks to the film and the actors is likely something I would never remove unless it appeared false since it is not a lot more effort to go the wikilinked page and copy a citation for something as basic as that information. – notwally (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I removed the sentence about it being one of India's fastest selling books of all time. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes this article is heavily unsourced, however, I don't see anything harmful here thus I think "citation needed" tags for sometime will be fine before cleanup of unsourced information. Devopam (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Jim Justice

In relation to the above discussion about Joe Manchin, an editor (@Eoqkr75:) keeps putting in that Jim Justice is now a US Senator. Justice doesn't assume his Senate seat until January 14, 2025. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Scott Ritter Biography - Noncompliance with MOS and BLP Guidelines

I am requesting approval to fix issues in the Scott Ritter article regarding the description of his convictions. The article states in its second sentence: He is a convicted child sex offender. Labeling Ritter as a "child sex offender" carries moral judgment and appears to be name-calling, which the MOS explicitly warns against. According to MOS:CONVICTEDFELON: Labels such as "convicted sex offender" are imprecise and could be construed as name-calling or a moral judgement. It is better to describe the specific crime itself. The current wording fails to comply with this guideline.

2) Undue Weight: MOS:CONVICTEDFELON states that legal issues should only be highlighted in the lead if central to a person’s notability, which is not the case with Ritter's convictions. His notable career as a UN weapons inspector and outspoken critic of the Iraq War is the basis for his fame, not his convictions. Placing this legal information in the second sentence gives it undue prominence, overshadowing his primary achievements. Convictions for online communications with an undercover officer are not what make Ritter notable, as many non-notable individuals face similar charges and nobody is writing their Misplaced Pages bios.

3) Imprecision: The term child sex offender in the Ritter bio links to the article for child sexual abuse, which that article defines as a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation, whereas Ritter's convictions involved contact with an adult undercover police officer posing as a minor. This distinction is significant and misrepresented by the current label.

To bring the article in line with Misplaced Pages's policies, I propose we replace He is a convicted child sex offender with: In 2011, Ritter was convicted of several criminal offenses following an undercover sting operation, during which he engaged in sexually explicit online communications with a police officer posing as a minor. This phrasing avoids imprecise labeling and provides accurate context.

Placement Adjustment: Move this information to a "Legal issues" or "Controversies" section later in the article, ensuring balance and compliance with the undue weight guideline. However, since this information is already covered in the body, we should simply remove the statement from the first paragraph, or move it down to the bottom of the second paragraph.

I attempted to edit the article to reflect these changes, but my edits were reverted with the explanation that "there was consensus found to include this in the lead." However, no justification was provided for how the current wording and placement comply with MOS and BLP policies. I raised my concerns on the article's Talk Page, but they have not been addressed. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "convicted sex offender" is particularly useful in a lead given the breadth of its meaning, and I think it makes far more sense to describe the conviction. The current lead does seem to violate the MOS guideline. – notwally (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I've changed this per the suggestion. Hopefully the problem is solved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

An editor just reverted the changes without discussion () after I had already made an article talk page comment about this BLPN topic and the violation of MOS policies (). Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

We're instructed not to make stand alone controversies sections etc so that would be the opposite of balance and compliance with the undue weight guideline unless I'm missing something here. Do you mean as a seperate section of the lead? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing like it was in this diff: would be good; a more accurate sentence, at the bottom of the lead, that gives details about the conviction. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes that is preferable, in the lead but not in the first sentence. I think we could say less than that though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please note that That One Editor has once again reverted it to being the less-detailed version in the first paragraph (after having been stymied on a campaign to add unsourced or miss-sourced material to the full sentence.) Can we get more hands on this? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Would you like to propose some language? The key is that we should briefly but accurately state the facts of his conviction instead of labeling his person as such. It seems notable that the convictions resulted from a sting operation (versus contact with an actual minor). Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

How about "In 2011, Ritter was convicted of criminal offenses after engaging in sexually explicit online communications with a police officer posing as a minor." Pretty close to OP's proffer but a little shorter. JFHJr (㊟) 01:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Now at AE, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Luganchanka. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be in the lead at all as it doesn't seem like the thing that made him notable. However, if he is only notable for the combination of his offense plus his other work then the lead should make that clear. As a stand alone fact it should either be at the end of the lead or not at all. Springee (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

He is only notable for his other career activities. The criminal offenses by themselves fail notability. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Peter Berg

There seems to be some editing back and forth going on in the Personal Life section re: Caitlyn Jenner controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearlessfool (talk • contribs) 01:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the back and forth? There don't seem to be recent back and forth problems in the edit history. Do you mean WP:UNDUE discussion in the prose? Please feel free to voice your concern on the article talkpage before escalating here. This is a forum for when consensus isn't apparent or serious BLP violations occur. JFHJr (㊟) 03:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any back and forth either, but in my view, using WP:TMZ as the sole source for that paragraph is a BLPVIO. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Sandra Kälin

This article and its references are a combination of two different people (de:Sandra Kälin to see the german article for both), how should this be best addressed? Split and 2 Stubs? Nobody (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep. JFHJr (㊟) 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Coréon Dú

I tried removing promotional-sounding text and irrelevant citations on this article a while back. I also rewrote the section on nepotism and his work which has now been blanked.

Theyve been reverted and the sections on criticism marked as disputed, by an account that has only edited this article: .

Could someone take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FossilWave (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution