Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Additional notes:




    WP:BLPCRIME & international criminal law

    [edit]

    Do categories like Category:Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court, Category:Fugitives wanted on war crimes charges, & Category:Fugitives wanted on crimes against humanity charges break WP:BLPCRIME?

    This issue was first brought up by @AndreJustAndre at Talk:Yoav Gallant#WP:BLPCRIME, but as it calls into question the validity of such categories as a whole, I thought it best to ask how/if WP:BLPCRIME interacts with international criminal law.

    Moved here by request of @Simonm223. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gallant is definitely a PUBLICFIGURE and we should neutrally document what sources say, but categories like "fugitive" and "war criminal" don't seem adequately attested in sources to be a category, which should be a defining characteristic. And you did leave out the "war criminal" category in your question. Andre🚐 22:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies. I hadn't asked about "war criminal" as I agreed with your removal of it & that no one reinstated it later. I only asked about categories that are currently still on the page. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gallant is certainly a public figure. "War Criminal" is, unfortunately, the domain of WP:CRYSTALBALL but fugitive from the ICC is accurate and reflected in many reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't understand why we have these categories, as someone who edits a lot about crime. How defining are the individual stages of the criminal process vs the crime itself? Fugitive/charged/convicted/acquitted of category trees have always annoyed me for this reason. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    might be a case of WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION but dont know much about categories Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these are BLP violations under WP:BLPCRIMINAL, which says "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." The word "fugitive" would mean that these people are still living and are accused of a crime but have not been convicted. There was recently a similar discussion on this noticeboard [1] and there is an ongoing CfD that was relisted today for further discussion [2]. – notwally (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was roughly what I had in mind from the removal. Thanks for stating it more eloquently and with proper links supporting. Andre🚐 00:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that Gallant has been charged. I think (but I'm not sure) that he would only be charged once arrested. In any case, a more bland category name that is 100% true and relevant to notability would be something like "Persons subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant". If such a category existed, I can't think of any reason to not include him. Zerotalk 01:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would that not also fail the provision in BLPCRIME mentioned above? It's related to crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, how is this arrest warrant relevant to his notability? Isn't he notable fully without that fact for several other things? Regardless of what happens with his status as having had a warrant issued, he was notable fully as an Israeli military man, politician and minister, and I don't see the warrant is a relevant thing to his notability but simply a recent news fact that involves him. Unless "relevant to notability" is intended to mean anything that might be part of his biography, if it were written today, this would occupy a small portion of it, right? Andre🚐 02:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People can be notable for multiple reasons. Of course he was already notable enough for an article, but now he is a bit more notable. BLPCRIME doesn't exclude it, since he is a public figure and the name I suggested does not say that he committed a crime. It only states an objective fact. An ICC warrant puts him in a very exclusive club and I don't see why there shouldn't be a category for that club. We don't omit scientists from the Nobel Prize winners category if they were already famous before winning the prize. Zerotalk 04:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but the existing "fugitive" categories being discussed, unlike winning a Nobel Prize, are subcategories of "Category:People associated with crime." and of "Category:Suspected criminals," and "Category:Fugitives" is a subcategory of "Criminals by status" which indeed is under "Criminals." Now, the BLP text above mentions Criminals and its subcategories, so it seems like a matter for interpretation whether the caveat applies that they must have been convicted to include the categories. It would seem to say though that these fugitive categories on this basis should not be included. Andre🚐 04:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "convicted fugitives" category would presumably be fine under WP:BLPCRIMINAL, but not any categories that contain living people and allege criminal conduct without a conviction. – notwally (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fugitive does not inherently allege criminal conduct without a conviction. A "convicted fugitives" category would just be confusing and largely oxymoronic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories aside we also have List of fugitives from justice who disappeared. The title seems sorta odd since it includes people like Febri Irwansyah Djatmiko who's location seems to have been known even when they were fugitives and who might still be somewhat easily findable but are protected by the lack of an extradition treaty between where they are and the jurisdiction seeking them. Heck I just noticed it even includes Abu Mohammad al-Julani who recently isn't exactly low profile, and who even did a CNN interview. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are going to contend that this is a BLP violation then we should be consistent. Is Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations a BLP violation? It's got lots of controversial categories for what is technically an article about unproven accusations against a BLP. Example [[Category:Sexual abuse cover-ups]], [[Category:Sex trafficking]] and [[Category:Rape in the United States]] I would suggest a famous politician who is one of the leaders of his country is at least as much a public person as a music producer. I would likewise suggest that accusations of war crimes are even more severe than accusations of systematic sexual assault. So what is the consistent Wikipedia policy here? Should we be deleting the Sean Combs article as a BLP violation? Should we be deleting categories that, while accurate, might lead people to believe a person subject to unproven crminal accusations is guilty? Or should we also maintain the "accusation" categories on Gallant? Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd favor removing the categories from the Sean Combs article. Nobody is advocating deleting either article. Andre🚐 13:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with removing the categories from the article. Covering alleged crimes by living people is permissible in articles, but WP:BLPCRIMINAL puts an absolute bar on those types of categories being used. – notwally (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So wouldn't the WP:BOLD action be to delete all "accused of" categories? Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like just removing the "accused of" categories from Gallant while leaving them established is inviting a double-standard. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that BLPCRIME wise its kosher because saying someone is a fugitive from justice is different than saying they're guilty... The war criminal category though should be reserved for those with a conviction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The "fugitive" categories are a subcategory of Category:Criminals (because they are by definition alleging criminal conduct), and therefore should not contain any living people pursuant to WP:BLPCRIMINAL. The requirements at WP:BLPCRIME are separate considerations for content in articles, but WP:BLPCRIMINAL has an absolute bar on the use of categories in these circumstances. – notwally (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then remove Category:Criminals... You're literally proposing the opposite of what we're supposed to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, yeah, I mean, we could recategorize the fugitive categories to not be under "Criminals" and maybe we should do that anyway. I confess I do not know if this requires some kind of requested move process or is a bold type of move. However, while we could look into that anyway, or Puffy or whatnot (Wikipedia doesn't demand that Puffy be treated the same as Gallant, and I don't have much interest in editing him, but that shouldn't stop anyone from doing that and maybe someone should), I think keeping the "fugitives" category on the Gallant page is counter to the spirit of BLP even if we make it policy-abiding by divorcing it from the "criminal" tree. Categories are supposed to be accurate and neutral. A certain POV is that Israel isn't a signatory to the ICC and didn't sign the Rome Statute, AFAIK, and while CAIR is calling Yoav Gallant a fugitive and war criminal, that doesn't seem to be the most accurate or common description in reliable sources, and might not be a neutral description of the situation. It's also misleading under the plain meaning of "fugitive" which would imply that he's fleeing justice, as opposed to simply not being extradited by his own government, or I guess, just showing up somewhere that would arrest him, both of which seem pretty unlikely to occur. But a naive reader could assume that means he was convicted of a crime or is somehow on the lam. Andre🚐 04:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added Category:Legal procedure. You're supposed to voluntarily surrender to the court. Someone who doesn't turn themselves in to the court is a fugitive from justice, that is within the plain meaning of the term. Gallant is "on the lam from the law" (you would have to be incredibly naive to believe otherwise). Note that this isn't an endorsement of the court or a particular form of justice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not it is currently under Category:Criminals, that doesn't matter because it is still includes allegations of criminal conduct by a living person prior to conviction. The point of our BLP rules regarding categorizing criminal conduct is to protect the privacy interests of individuals by avoiding categories that allege criminal conduct prior to conviction because the categories are unable to provide context or nuance that can be provided in main article space. Changing the top-level category doesn't avoid the BLP violation. Either the policy needs to be changed or the category needs to be deleted. – notwally (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is allowed to include allegations of criminal conduct by a living person prior to conviction, that isn't a BLP violation. What it can't do is treat them as something other than allegations. A fugitive is not a criminal, saying that someone is a fugitive isn't saying that they are a criminal... Its saying that a courts has ordered them to appear and they have declined to appear... It doesn't actually say anything about their guilt or innocence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fugitive means they are charged with or convicted of criminal conduct. So it is a BLP violation if they are included in that type of category prior to conviction. Also, some fugitives have definitely been convicted, there's literally a whole TV series and film about one. Trying to change categories to avoid the explicit BLP policy is just gaming the system. – notwally (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Including information about being charged with a crime is not a BLP violation... And if they are convicted then again no BLP violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim that "Including information about being charged with a crime is not a BLP violation" is not true, which is why WP:BLPCRIME exists, as sometimes that will be a BLP violation in main article space depending on the circumstances. As for categories, including any categories that involve being charged with a crime without a conviction are BLP violations. That is why WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLPCRIMINAL exist. No one has ever said here that a category about criminal conduct after a conviction is a BLP violation, so not sure what that red herring is about. You are the one who said that "convicted fugitive" is oxymoronic, apparently not understanding what those terms mean. – notwally (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A fugitive does not mean criminal though. It doesn't even necessarily imply guilt as a fugitive can be on the run for a crime they haven't committed or because they refuse to give testimony, even if they aren't a suspect. In this context, fugitive only means that they've been accused of a crime & have yet to've faced a trial, not that they're a criminal.
    A "convicted fugitive" then would be someone who was first convicted of a crime & then went on the run/avoided the result of said conviction, otherwise they couldn't have been convicted yet.
    WP:BLPCRIME states "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction." which doesn't contradict "Including information about being charged with a crime" as long as we aren't stating that they are guilty of said crime.
    Further considerations only apply when concerning non-public figures.
    This is just my reading of the policy though & why I brought the case here to begin with. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A fugitive can be on the run for a crime they haven't committed Famously so, in fact. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The more directly relevant policy is WP:BLPCRIMINAL (not WP:BLPCRIME, which is a relevant but separate policy). Any category under Category:Criminals should not be applied to living people who have not yet been convicted. A category such as "fugitives" is going to be under the "suspected criminals" subcategory (or convicted criminals category, such as for Dr. Richard Kimble of The Fugitive TV series and film), and so it should not be applied to anyone who is still living and has not been convicted. I'm not aware of anyone in the categories you posted in your original post above who are not accused of crimes, and it appears most if not all have not been convicted of those crimes. – notwally (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that's what WP:BLPCRIMINAL says as written, I'm unsure if it's accurate in spirit (I know that sounds stupid, but I'll explain my thought process).
    The reason we don't categorize someone as a criminal unless they were convicted (& the conviction stuck) is because to do otherwise would be WP:CRYSTAL & potentially defamatory.
    Categorizing someone as a fugitive however is a statement of fact. They haven't been convicted & haven't faced trial, but they've been formerly charged. It does not imply guilt, isn't defamatory, & isn't WP:CRYSTAL.
    You can't be convicted of being a fugitive & once you're convicted, you aren't a fugitive unless you run away after that conviction.
    As such, should I break off a request to determine if the category of fugitive should be considered to violate WP:BLPCRIMINAL? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's stupid and your way of looking at it seems a reasonable position, but I think our BLP policies align more with the idea that saying someone has been charged with a crime does imply guilt, which is why, unless there has been a conviction, we (1) generally don't include those accusations for non-public figures in articles, (2) only include for public figures in article space if there are multiple high quality sources about it, and (3) don't include in categories for any living people because they cannot provide adequate context. BLPCRIMINAL is the most directly relevant policy when discussing categories, rather than BLPCRIME, and so it may be helpful to redirect the discussion to that instead. – notwally (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, not at all stupid but I agree with notwally on the merits. BLP means Wikipedia tries not to imply guilt. PUBLICFIGURE gives some leeway but I think this is pushing it. Andre🚐 22:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fugitive status does not imply guilt... Neither does being charged with a crime, that is simply not what the policy or practice is. WP:BLPCRIMINAL advises "Caution should be used with content categories," which explicitly contadicts "don't include in categories for any living people" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being charged with a crime definitely does imply guilt. Please also see this nearly identical discussion earlier this month, where almost all editors agreed that categories about criminal charges against living people prior to conviction are BLP violations. – notwally (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a category about being charged with a crime and no it doesn't (it doesn't imply guilt anymore than it implies innocence, you're relentlessly twisting reality to serve your own views). And again you can be a fugitive from a civil court, it doesn't have to be a criminal court so even if we take your statement as true it just doesn't apply to the category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't say "Don't cover accusations, investigations, arrests and charges." You're taking this a level beyond what anything actually says, if the person is a public figure there is no inherent issue with the category from a BLP perspective. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the central purposes of WP:BLPCRIMINAL is to exclude categories that accuse living people of a crime prior to conviction. There was recently an almost identical discussion earlier this month, where there seemed to be a pretty clear consensus that these types of categories are BLP violations. – notwally (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've gone in a circle again... Fugitive is not a category that inherently accuses living people of a crime prior to conviction. It only is because of the way its been constructed, change that construction and poof no violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which category of "...by the International Criminal Court" or "...on war crimes charges" or "...on crimes against humanity charges" do you think are fugitives from a civil court? I'm not interested in pointless word games, and I don't see anyone else in this discussion supporting your views. – notwally (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you play a pointless word game... And then claim not to be interested in pointless word games? Maybe this is just a bias thing but I'm seeing other people make similar arguments to me, for example Andre, Butterscotch Beluga, Zero, Levivich and Patar knight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not me, I agreed with notwally. Andre🚐 22:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are at least some things we agree on, for example I agree that "the BLP text above mentions Criminals and its subcategories, so it seems like a matter for interpretation whether the caveat applies that they must have been convicted to include the categories." If you think I've miscategorized anyone else please let me know, I may be mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes. It's a matter of interpretation. Since people wanted to move fugitives out of that criminals category tree, that would moot the BLPCRIMINAL text. Andre🚐 22:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps this would best be discussed at WP:CFD. TarnishedPathtalk 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any BLPCRIME problem for public figures, which almost all ICC fugitives are (if not all). Levivich (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The relevant policy is not WP:BLPCRIME, but WP:BLPCRIMINAL, which prohibits categories alleging criminal conduct for living people without a conviction. – notwally (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OP's question was about BLPCRIME, not BLPCRIMINAL. But nothing in the text of BLPCRIMINAL prohibits the existence of Category:Fugitives, although I suppose if someone thought that it did, they could take that category to WP:CFD. I'd vote to keep. Levivich (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're already at CFD. I don't have the link handy. It's there though. Andre🚐 23:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see Category:Fugitives at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions. Levivich (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe there is a discussion about "fugitive" categories, but there is one about "charged with" categories: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions#Category:People by criminal charge. – notwally (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I meant; my mistake, thanks Andre🚐 23:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP is asking about categories such as "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which is by definition a criminal allegation and therefore should not include any living people or else it is a clear BLP violation under BLPCRIMINAL: "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." (emphasis added) – notwally (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLPCRIMINAL does not prohibit "criminal allegations" and does not contain those words. Category:Fugitives is not (any longer) a subcategory of Category:Criminals. I know it's kind of unusual around here, but I did actually read this discussion, and investigate the categories, and read the relevant policy pages, all before making up my mind and posting a comment. Levivich (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think removing subcategories from parent categories to avoid an otherwise clear BLP violation is gaming the system and ignores the privacy concerns that led to the creation of those policies. – notwally (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should never have been in that category in the first place since fugitives are not necessarily criminals. Some (e.g. escaped convicts from prison) are, but the page notes that the category tracks the ordinary definition in that it includes people not turning themselves in for arrest, questioning, or even fleeing vigilante justice/private individuals, none of which requires them to be a criminal. If there's a clear BLP violation here, it would be insisting on labelling people in these latter groups as criminals through sub/parent categorization.
    As for the WP:BLPCRIME issue people in these specific categories mentioned in this section are all public figures and noting that they have not surrendered to a body as long as that's cited to RSs in the article (which shouldn't be an issue given the high-profile nature of such cases), is not a BLP violation. ITN has dealt with a similar issue in that while normally news blurbs about criminal charges are not blurbed for BLP reasons unless its about a conviction, but ICC arrest warrants being issued have routinely been posted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is specifically about categories such as "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which obviously should be under "Category:Criminals". Also, please note that BLPCRIME is not the relevant policy for categories alleging criminal conduct. The applicable policy is WP:BLPCRIMINAL, which has no exception for public figures. – notwally (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that categories such as "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", or any of the Category:Fugitives cateogires, obviously should be under Category:Criminals; in fact, I think it's obvious that they should not be, because not all fugitives are criminals, so the subcategorization wouldn't comply with WP:SUBCAT (failing the "is-a" relationship). Levivich (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which obviously should be under "Category:Criminals" is simply not true? The only person in the ICC category who was convicted is Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, by a local Libyan court in absentia, and for which the ICC has said is not sufficient to drop its own charges. Everyone else in that category has not been convicted, so they are legally not criminals and should not be in the category. WP:BLPCRIME applies sitewide and generally prohibits labelling unconvicted people as criminals, which you seem to want to do. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPCRIMINAL are part of the same policy: Biographies of living persons. "which obviously should be under "Category:Criminals"" doesn't seem obvious or even sensible, how can you both be arguing that we should obviously be doing something and also that doing that thing would be a BLP violation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're missing an important issue when considering this categorization. WP:CATDEFINE says A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. This is especially important with negative or contentious categories. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CATEDEFINE is another one of those "meh" policies, because it says For non-defining characteristics, editors should use their judgment to choose which additional categories (if any) to include. and it doesn't say anything about what should influence that judgment.
    World leaders who are accused of war crimes seems like as good a category to have as any. And it probably is defining. For example, I'll bet you $100,000 quatloos that every single biography of every single ICC fugitive will state that they are (or were) an ICC fugitive. It's impossible to imagine that a biography of a leader wouldn't "refer to" an ICC arrest warrant for that leader. It's a big deal.
    At bottom, "political leaders with ICC arrest warrants" is an encyclopedic topic. Having a list of them would be encyclopedic. Having categories of them would also be encyclopedic. And because they are political leaders, there just isn't really any BLP problem from any angle. We report when political leaders are accused of crimes, regardless of whether they're convicted or not. Just the accusation is a significant WP:ASPECT of the topic, when the accusation is crimes and the topic is a political leader. At least for national political leaders (maybe not the local town mayor... but maybe a mayor, too). Levivich (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    every single biography of every single ICC fugitive will state that they are (or were) an ICC fugitive If that is the case, it should be possible to name one biography of Yoav Gallant that uses that language. Maybe it's too recent and it hasn't been written or published yet. Andre🚐 00:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its too recent, unless I'm missing something he was charged a month ago. The point seems to stand though, any biography of Gallant published in the future is going to talk about this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not clear, that's an assumption. It's not clear at all that they will refer to him as a fugitive until we see that happen. Andre🚐 23:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't imagine anyone could receive an ICC arrest warrant & have that not be considered significant enough to mention when describing them. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its an assumption in the same way that the sun coming up tomorrow is an assumption. I can't imagine not including that sort of thing in a biography... And I'm the worst sort of person (I actually read political biographies! ha) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It really depends on when the biography will be written, who wrote it, and what might happen in the intervening time. For example, if Gallant gets arrested, they probably won't bother talking about how he was a fugitive. Or if the arrest warrant is cancelled or withdrawn, it also probably won't get mentioned as him being a fugitive. WP:CRYSTAL Andre🚐 23:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, but today he is a fugitive from justice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you square that with WP:CATDEFINE? Andre🚐 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CRYSTAL has never barred speculation when it is verifiable by reliable sources and lists the next American presidential election as an example. While it may not ultimately pan out, there's verifiable information about it and all previous iterations have been notable. That's similar to the case here, where every single previous person charged by the ICC has had that been defining and there's no reason to think that would be different here given how much attention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets. The fact that they are fugitives is simply a statement of fact about where in the ICC process they current are (i.e. they're not detained, acquitted, or convicted). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very easily, today it is a defining feature... If the events you forsee in your crystal ball (Gallant gets arrested, the arrest warrant is cancelled or withdrawn) come to pass then it will likely cease to be a defining feature... CRYSTAL is not on your side here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is 100% too recent and to insist otherwise would be deliberately obtuse. It's normally somewhat rare for non-heads of state to get biographies published on them and the timeline for reputable biographies to get published is years not a month.
    The best and closest comparison would probably be Omar al-Bashir as another politician no longer in the office that lead to the charges and as someone with some distance from the charges. This biography of Bashir by a British foreign affairs analyst [3], which I don't have access to, has about 30 hits for "ICC" and "International Criminal Court", and a chapter devoted to the ICC, which presumably details the well-known enforcement issues. The Britannica biography has a section devoted to the ICC case [4] and discusses difficulties enforcing. When he was overthrown, the BBC profile [5] mentions the ICC stuff as well. The ICC stuff is brought up in recent news articles almost entirely unrelated matters. [6]
    In general though, it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone charged by the ICC won't have that be a defining feature and these categories simply indicate the stage of the process where they're at. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, SFR; I knew that there was a piece of policy or guideline about categories being defining, and that is it. I agree. This hardly seems defining to me, and I'm not sure the burden has been met (yet?) that it articulates Andre🚐 00:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin_Short

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    It has been removed. Decider is not an appropriate source to put weight on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 ([7][8]), which fails WP:NOTGOSSIP in addition to BLP sourcing concerns. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Călin Georgescu

    [edit]

    What do you say about [9]? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For those interested in beating a dead horse, here's a link to the prior discussion from two weeks ago, as well as a courtesy link to the article's talk page discussion: Talk:Călin Georgescu#New Age. – notwally (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument was that I used low-quality sources. Your argument no longer holds true.
    So, basically, the burden of proof is according to you infinitely high. This man preaches New Age in public, but since he denies he is preaching New Age, it cannot be stated in his article. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of my objections to your content was the quality of the sources. You adding in another opinion article does not address that concern. Another objection was that you are making claims about a living person's personal religious beliefs that they dispute. I don't think that is appropriate, and if it is, then it would need very high quality sources supporting any claims about that, IMO. A third objection was that this content has been disputed and no one else has supported including it except for you, which is far from demonstrating there is a consensus for inclusion. – notwally (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a mind reader, so I do not profess to know his private thoughts. But journalists, academics, and theologians have analyzed his public discourse. There is a difference between private thoughts and public discourse. We cannot investigate the former, but we can know the latter. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A bishop of the Romanian Orthodox Church has lambasted the danger of the New Age in the context of the Romanian presidential elections. He did not explicitly name CG, but all informed readers know there was no other candidate for whom New Age was an issue. See [10].
    This is getting serious, especially seen that the lower ROC clergy made political campaign for CG. The leadership of the Church played politically neutral. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chronicles (magazine) has a lot of sympathy for CG, but they also notice he is preaching New Age. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC on Taylor Lorenz controversial statement regarding healthcare ceo shooting

    [edit]

    Posting to relevant noticeboards: Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#RfC_on_Taylor_Lorenz's_comments_on_Brian_Thompson's_murder Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blake Lively

    [edit]

    The New York Times reported today that Blake Lively—an actress I've never heard of before—has been the subject of a coordinated, paid campaign to stir up negative social media and internet publicity against her. The article does not mention Wikipedia as a focus of these alleged efforts, but we should be aware of this issue. Perhaps unrelated, but I have removed one sentence from Blake Lively sourced only to a Youtube video and a second sentence that was not sourced at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RSN discussion about use of a self-published source (The InSneider) in film articles

    [edit]

    Posting a relevant discussion which might touch on WP:BLPSPS: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Jeff_Sneider_/_The_InSneider -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Moira Deeming

    [edit]

    There’s been a recent update of Moira Deeming’s DOB as consequence of an affidavit that she filled as consequence of a lawsuit initiated by her. What is the more pertinent policy? WP:BLPPRIMARY which says we shouldn’t use court transcripts or other court documents in BLPs, or WP:BLPSELFPUB which says that because it’s an uncontentious fact which the subject has written about themselves that we can use it? Please see discussion at Talk:Moira Deeming#Date of birth. TarnishedPathtalk 10:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Abubakar Atiku Bagudu

    [edit]

    A heads up on something worth keeping an eye on. A new user is removing the (sourced) section on this article entitled "Corruption". It could probably do with someone more competent than me double checking the quality of the sources. The edit summary of their second blanking of the section reads: "This information is misleading and it has no basis to be uploaded. The matter is currently in court and should be removed from the subjects profile until adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction." which is not a legal threat, per se, but does have a chilling effect. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential Bias and Edit Warring on “David and Stephen Flynn” Biography

    [edit]

    Hi everyone,

    I am reaching out to request assistance with the article about David and Stephen Flynn on Wikipedia. There appears to be an ongoing issue with 2 sections: "Careers" and "Health Advice & Public Response" [previously titled “Medical Misinformation.”]

    Several attempts have been made to improve the neutrality of the section by adding balanced context and reliable sources to reflect differing perspectives, but these edits are repeatedly reverted by an editor (or editors) without meaningful discussion or engagement. The old section "medical misinformation" is highly one-sided and does not adhere to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

    For the "careers" section, the editor(s) keep deleting that they've stopped collaborating with Russell Brand and to make it seem they still support him. Although the original comments were made prior to recent allegations against Russell Brand.

    Specific changes made: 1) The section title, “Medical Misinformation,” is sensational and prejudges the content. I have proposed a more neutral alternative (“Health Advice and Public Response”) to better reflect the material. 2) Revisions have added reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed studies and mainstream media articles, to provide context and balance, but these have been reverted without clear justification. 3) Efforts to include clarifications about actions taken by David and Stephen Flynn, such as their acknowledgment of errors and removal of contentious content, have also been removed or ignored.

    I believe this issue warrants review by neutral, experienced editors to ensure the article aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality, verifiability, and respect for biographies of living persons.

    I would greatly appreciate guidance or intervention from the community to address this matter fairly. I am happy to provide details of the edits and sources I have proposed.

    Thank you for your time and assistance. SabLovesSunshine (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Related: WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#David_and_Stephen_Flynn Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks... I have responded there as I can see that person has gone in to change the wiki page again. Not sure what more we can do. SabLovesSunshine (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a convo on the article talk page. Please continue there. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at WT:DYK regarding Diddy parties

    [edit]

    An editor has started a discussion "about the WP:BLP aspects" of a DYK nomination at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Diddy parties. Feel free to offer input there, Rjjiii (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit War on Trump

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Maynard James Keenan

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

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

    Eternal Blue (album)

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Richard Stanley (director)

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    On it. GiantSnowman 13:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate it, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the IP needs blocking. SPA and edit warring. GiantSnowman 14:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Frank Pando

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    Problematic redirect from one BLP to another: Rabea Massaad

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

    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)[reply]

    WP:RFD looks like your forum. JFHJr (㊟) 05:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I added a reference verifying Massaad's role in Dorje. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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

    [edit]

    Full of BLP and NPOV vio's, unencyclopedic language and unreliable sources. I removed a couple. [11][12]   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)[reply]

    ... and the two diffs above got reverted [13], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1266179856"