Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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:

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

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 ([1][2]), which fails WP:NOTGOSSIP in addition to BLP sourcing concerns. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{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; Wikipedia 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)

Maynard James Keenan

This article contains a mention of a serious allegation against the living subject that, while reported in reliable sources, has had questions of whether or not it constitutes due weight for inclusion on the article's talk page. I don't see firm consensus one way or another, but I did remove it a few days ago since consensus is required for inclusion even for verifiable BLP material per WP:BLP and WP:V. I have since had my removal of this content slightly reverted with the content restored, albeit without the subheading that was included for it. I was considering reverting again, per BLP and WP:STATUSQUO, which directly states: "If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious." However, given that per WP:3RRBLP, what counts as exempt under BLP with regards to the three-revert rule can be controversial, I figured I'd ask here to see what others think would be a good idea. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Ringerfan23:, who reverted my edit, for their input. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've commented at the talk page. Hopefully discussion there occurs and this thread can be closed. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:11, 26 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

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: Wikipedia: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

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 Wikipedia 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. [3][4]   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 ^privacy • _(s)talk 18:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

... and the two diffs above got reverted [5], 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 ^privacy • _(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. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/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 ([6]) and metalzone ([7]). 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:

• 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)

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], 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)

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)