Fort Towson

Despite receiving attention on and off Wikipedia before and during COP28, there has been no update on Sultan Al Jaber to communicate the results of this event.

I would like to disclose my Conflict of Interest in regards to this article and request some changes to address missing information. I have proposed language on the Talk page for consideration, for which I would gratefully appreciate the review of people familiar with BLP policies to ensure the tone is totally neutral. Many thanks! Dedemocha (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is now live in the COI request queue but would definitely benefit from oversight by editors more familiar with editing BLPs. Dedemocha (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the recent revelation of her using Wikipedia to benefit her own narrative not being disclosed on her Wikipedia page? There are multiple sources across the internet, as well as video interviews where she admits to censoring facts she doesn't like.

Even the original creator has spoken about the blatant misinformation and how Wikipedia can no longer be a trusted source of factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:2978:14CD:C09D:B454:97E0:5873 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this unsourced, propagandastic crap or this unsourced, propagandastic crap or this unsourced, propagandastic crap? You're defending blatant WP:BLP violations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that OP is referring to recent Fox News [1] and New York Post [2] articles. Obviously, New York Post is not a reliable source per WP:RSP, and Fox is problematic. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fox is also an unreliable source because this falls into politics/science coverage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I do see some potential in cutting down the career section a little, to mostly what is present in secondary (and, implicitly, third-party) sources. Adding more primary sourced junk and opinion pieces is the exact opposite of appropriate though, and the frenzy surrounding it makes me disinclined to approach with the proverbial pole of significant length. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe just over 3 meters is traditional. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reaching out for assistance regarding an ongoing edit war and potential BLP violation on Bryan Freedman. Despite clear resolution on the talk page there's been persistent reverting and re-adding of contentious content.

Here is a specific diff highlighting the issue: BLP violation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianthe (talk • contribs)

I've twice restored the redirect at Walter Rhodes (murderer), following serious unsourced claims by editor User:WalterRhodesJr. A third revert would probably be allowable as a potential WP:BLP violation under WP:3RRNO, but taking it here seemed a better idea. Discussion at the editor's user talk is not currently making progress, and the article can't remain in its present state. The claims made are in direct contradiction to the sourced statement at target Jesse Tafero, which the same editor has also tried a few times to alter against the sources cited, in an apparently straightforward case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikishovel (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this individual of enough notoriety to warrant their own dedicated wiki page? Lostsandwich (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should have updated this thread: the redirect was restored by another editor, and there's a discussion about whether to keep the redirect at WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Walter Rhodes (murderer). Expanding the redirect into an article is an alternative, but so far it looks like per WP:PERP, there's not yet sufficient coverage or significance for a separate article. Wikishovel (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So tired of all the comments since they make no sense. None of your replies are accurate. You cannot name a person as "murderer" when Walter Rhodes never killed anyone. He was forced to plead guilty "self´convict" so that he could testify in court and had nothing to gain from testifying. You should edit Michael Satz WP and add corruption, judicial misconduct ets. The investigation about him has proved that he had control over a judicial network that he did what ever he wanted to. Satz himself was corrupt and dangerous. WalterRhodesJr (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Rhodes pled guilty to second degree murder and the court accepted his plea, then there is no policy violation in calling him a murderer unless a later court overturned that verdict. If reliable sources report that someone called "Satz" was corrupt and dangerous, then we can take a close look at that. But it can't be based on an unreferenced assertion by a family member. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WalterRhodesJr, please also understand that Wikipedia has policies about WP:Biographies of living persons, and to stick to those policies we have to be very careful about what we write. So it's no use for us to argue here about whether or not we believe evidence for one conclusion or another: we have to WP:Verify what we write, using WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia also doesn't allow WP:Original research. Wikishovel (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes did´t kill anyone and was forced to take the plea. He had to self-convict in order to testify about the real killers. Thus, you cannot call him murderer. WalterRhodesJr (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might well be right. But to write about that on Wikipedia, we need to WP:Verify it, using WP:Reliable sources. Otherwise it's WP:Original research. Wikishovel (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that he's not a murderer because he pled out amounts to an argument-by-bizarre-definition if murder is what he pled to. It'd be akin to arguing that Ichiro Suzuki isn't a baseball player, he just hits balls with a stick and runs around a diamond-shaped field.

For another example of the argument you're making, Dog Chapman isn't a murderer, by your logic, since he was merely an unwitting getaway driver. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{AE thread summaries} 15:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am right and there are so many court filings since the trial in 1976 that are factual and that proves he never killed anyone. That is why he cannot be called a murderer. The facts about gun residue at Taferos WP is wrong. The officers who investigated the gun powder residue concluded that Walter had gun residue from being fired at the road block, on the upper left hand, not on his right hand and Rhodes is right handed, so that information put on Tafero´s WP is misleading and wrong. I would like the link deleted and Walter Rhodes should not be refered to. Keep what ever you want on Tafero´s WP, exclude the Walter Rhodes (murderer) It need to be deleted. WalterRhodesJr (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please change Nicki Minaj wikipedia profile picture to something more professional. I don’t understand why a screenshot shot from a video was used to be her photo when she has 100s of professional photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C000:C40:D44B:B6D0:163A:DAEC (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Becuse copyright. When it comes to living people and WP, the photographer has to "donate" it, or more formally release it under an acceptable license. Professional photographers want money for their work, and you can't blame them for that. More at WP:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A draft entry for Carol Leeming is now in my Sandbox. Concerns are invited. I hope to publish this as an entry in Wikipedia later this week.

This is the link to my sandbox : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TrevorGlynLocke/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorGlynLocke (talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Trevor Locke 22nd April 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorGlynLocke (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the comment at the top of the draft, added by Theroadislong 12 days ago. The draft is improperly formatted, cites improper sources, and is in no way ready to be made into an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if she meets WP:N, but see WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference which, while not great, may move the notability needle just a little bit. Oh here's another one, slightly better but still saddled with being local coverage. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is struggling with problems regarding sourced information about members with the names "Jessie Wagner" and "Tabitha King" joining and leaving, replacing member Helen Scott (who had COVID-19), and to prove that information, I began using henleystandard.co.uk and Instagram as sources. I am upset with User:SoulJapan's persistent removal of content and changing the name of Freddi Poole (even though her name is also spelled Freddie Pool). This has been going on for months and I have kept an eye on the page ever since 2023 because people continued to remove content, and it was semi-protected in December after I requested protection due to disruptive editing by IPs and persistent content removal. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Instagram account belonging to one member should not be cited to provide updates about other members of the group per WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INSTAGRAM it is okay to use it as a source sometimes to prove information, however it does not include events or any of that. It was an announcement to prove the statement I made, I did not make updates. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the information is unambiguous and specifically about the owner of the instagram account. ie: "My birthday is today, April 24th." could possibly be used to support a subject's birthday, but a friend wishing him happy birthday could not. We can only use it to prove certain types of information that is specifically about the owner of the account. Zaereth (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In October 2023, Isaac signed an open letter for the "Artists4Ceasefire" campaign alongside other artists, urging President Joe Biden to push for a ceasefire and an end to the killing of civilians amid the 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip[1]

 Michael Moore's profile must be emptied, and Mark Ruffalo, Michael Stipe, Bassem Youssef, Jon Stewart, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela, Jon Oliver, George Galloway, Amy Schumer, Angelina Jolie, Michael Rapaport, Cate Blanchett, Ben Affleck, Chelsea Handler, Bradley Cooper, Bob Odenkirk, Bret Gelman, Debra Messing, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sharon Osbourne, Chris Pine, Jerry Seinfeld, Sinead O'Connor ... and so on, and so on. 

Dragan Šolak (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see this edit request about this article's Money laundering investigations section. The name of the section is misleading, as it could imply Šolak was involved in money laundering investigations, which he was not. This section is not about Dragan Šolak directly but rather a media company owned by him and its reporting into Slovenian government misconduct. Disclosure: I am employed by United Group and Dragan Šolak, which is why I am seeking review by others. AlexforUnited (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took a look, and I agree with you. If the info provided is correct, then it appears the subject was alleging harassment by the authorities, and the head of those authorities was later arrested for doing some illegal investigations. Do I have that right? (The section is a little hard to read, like the syntax of the translations was a bit off or something, so I had to read it a few times to be sure what it said.)

The section title does indirectly imply some wrongdoing on the subject's part, so it makes sense to change it to a more neutral title. But what? I don't know. What would you suggest would be a better title? Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nambaryn Enkhbayar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edits on this page are repeatedly violating BLP policies. The last sentence in the introductory paragraph, "Due to his corruption scandal he is regarded as the godfather of corruption in Mongolian politics by the public media" is repeatedly inserted and is poorly sourced as well as potentially libelous.

Source 1 for the aformentioned sentence is an article titled "Enkhbayar is not the ONLY godfather of corruption in Mongolia" yet the contents of the article itself fail to provide any tangible and fact-based evidence for the claim. In fact, the article's contents do not discuss Enkhbayar at all, until in the first sentence of the last paragraph which simply repeats the title. This is misleading and biased.

Source 2 is a translated article from an original Russian newsite that discusses Enkhbayar's political career (albeit titled towards more allegedly controversial parts), but does not claim that he is the godfather of corruption. The source is also unreliable given it's a foreign news agency with no reputable and presence in Mongolia.

Both sources seem to be cherry-picked in an attempt to provide a biased and/or misleading narrative and detracts from objective information. The page includes a section "Conviction of Corruption" which discusses in detail the relevant facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.42.196.255 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Looking at one of the sources, it flat-out says, " N. Enkhbayar was given the nickname 'Godfather of Corruption' because of such actions."[3] The Business New Europe article does not immediately seem to be unreliable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timmyd47 is editing the article Tim Davis (baseball) by removing some negative information. I warned him of the issue of an involved person editing the page, but he edited it again, stating that the information was not true. I do not have knowledge as to whether the references that were supporting the allegations are correct or not, and am uncertain as to whether the allegations are important enough to be a part of the article, so I am bringing this discussion here for more knowledgable people to weigh in. I have notified TImmyd47 of this discussion and have left his latest edits on the page stand pending any decision here. --— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like alleged WP:BLPCRIME to me. Does it not to you? Assault, child abuse, what have you? Accusations of "corporal punishment" without parental permission looks like that to me. JFHJr (㊟) 23:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agree with the WP:BLPCRIME take. These are allegations against a person no longer in the public eye and entirely unrelated to the source of his Wikipedia notability. Definitely should not be in the article at this point, by my lights. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dumuzid I've left an explanation on the article talk page. This discussion already existed there when this OP posted. Hopefully that's enough to discourage an edit war/3RR problem. But in that case, OP should take himself to WP:ANI. The user OP complained of is at 2R today. JFHJr (㊟) 00:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so he allegedly assaulted an 18 year old woman in the name of education and discipline. He was also a public figure for 3 years. Does that publicity go away if RSes still mention him as the former baseball player? The wikipedia article and the RSes didn't go away. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He plays professionally for 3 years and is forever a public figure? That's rough. I don't see any indication he led a public life or sought publicity even during those 3 years. RS will of course mention his past. Does the accusation have anything to do with that notable past or his encyclopedic biography? Is the allegation of enduring biographical significance? Or is this WP:NOTNEWS? Does the coverage go beyond local? JFHJr (㊟) 01:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yes, current job reported by multiple RSes so that's part of his encyclopedic biography. Who knows per WP:CRYSTAL. This is not routine news. Coverage went beyond local given that it was reported by a national education news site (The 74) that ended up being syndicated by Yahoo News.[4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly disagree that this person is a public figure at this point in time. I would exclude per WP:BLPCRIME unless coverage became overwhelming, as in, for instance, substantial coverage in papers of record. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources referenced says state lawmakers debate the fate of rules that have long permitted teachers to spank students as a disciplinary measure. In other words, the incident seems to have complied with the Florida regulations. Personally, I oppose school officials carrying out corporal punishment. But this content violates WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPCRIME. At this time, he is convicted of nothing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have reached a fairly amicable impasse on Miriam Margolyes's talk page regarding her nationality. As a result, we have compromised with the description "Miriam Margolyes OBE (/ˈmɑːrɡəliːz/ MAR-gə-leez; born 18 May 1941) is an actress holding both British and Australian citizenship". Prior to that the fist sentence read "Miriam Margolyes OBE (/ˈmɑːrɡəliːz/ MAR-gə-leez; born 18 May 1941) is an English and Australian actress". Extra input from editors who have experience with resolving nationality would be helpful. The discussion is at Talk:Miriam_Margolyes#Nationality_redux and a prior discussion in which I was talking to myself is at Talk:Miriam_Margolyes#Nationality. The issue seems to arise regularly on Miriam's bio for some reason. The reference I have used is the Arnold Schwarzenegger example under "Nationality examples" at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context. Regarding "English" as a nationality there is a footnote from the above policy stating "There is no categorical preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and whether the subject has a preferred nationality by which they identify". Burrobert (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps more Peter Lorre than Arnold Schwarzenegger. No political confusion of an "Austrian-American" order. But yes, same result, use the conjunction. Chronological order around the and is best, unless dual-citizenship born (maybe subject's preference, nation of birth, nation relating most to notability, per consensus). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the subject of the information, I believe that certain details disclosed about me on Wikipedia infringe upon my privacy rights and may pose a risk to my personal safety. Furthermore, the information provided may be outdated, inaccurate, or irrelevant to the subject's notability. I respectfully request a discussion regarding the deletion or revision of this information to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy, neutrality, and respect for individuals' privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmaddarwish74 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion ultimately starts and ends with "Got any third-party, non-routine, independent-of-you news/scholarly stories that discuss you at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to rigourous editorial processes, including fact-checking?" The only way to get the information changed - especially if it's sourced - is to provide good sources to support those edits. We aren't otherwise going to change the article just because the subject tells us to, other than to remove unsourced content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{AE thread summaries} 16:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page, I believe the subject has asked for a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I don't know how significant the head of the Dept of Health is in Abu Dhabi. It looks like a bureaucrat position in a country that is smaller than many states in the United States. The problematic information he is referring to is a Voice of America report that references some Azerbaijani report. Given that it is a BLPCRIME/PUBLICFIGURE accusation it needs more than one reliable source, and I'm not sure VOA, the propaganda mouthpiece of the United States is one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the content about the Azerbaijan hunting incident because the implication of criminal misconduct does not seem to be backed up by reliable sources and the matter appears to have been resolved promptly by someone paying a small fine. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes personal information about a group of people from a family, some of whom are famous, with barely any source citrd supporting that information. This is especially problematic since some the people listed are minors. I’m very suspicious that not all of the information is even accurate. I already edit the article to remove a pair of siblings who allegedly were born just four months apart.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a WP:BLPNAME problem with the unnotable members. I looked around for other famous families and found the Barrymore family which is in the same state. Unclear why these articles shouldn't be deleted. Wikipedia isn't ancestry.com. Compare the state of these articles to the The Osmonds, who were notable as a group. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed all the non-notables from the Wayans family. DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing the not-yet-notable people from the article, but would oppose deleting the article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cullen328 on this one. Families can indeed be notable by having enough notable members. Notable members get included. Non-notable members may merit a single mention in the main member's article as WP:WEIGHT permits. Family articles should just exclude them. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made similar modifications to the Barrymore family article including removing the family tree since I haven't figured out how to make individual edits without breaking the tree. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those family trees are a nightmare to edit. There's a tool at User:Daduxing/familytree.js which makes it somewhat easier Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing discussion going on talk page with editors Reading Beans and Gråbergs Gråa Sång calling me a Wikipedia:Advocacy editor without me having done any thing to be called that and I consider it offensive. I have tried to edit base on Wikipedia:Libel and Wikipedia:Censorship and I made sure I followed the rules guiding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view on the Lead of the article on whether Simon Ekpa is a Prime Minister or not.

If you check the history of the discussion, you would notice how it all started. They were the ones that started the talk discussion but later deviated. I as an editor after a while saw the topic and decided to contribute but they ended up biting me. I edited based on information found on Finnish Wikipedia and Finnish Newspaper that rightly called Ekpa the "Prime Minister" but ended up being bitten by them and their intentions is probably to scare me away from contributing for them continue with their libelous editing by putting "Self-declared" Prime Minister on the Lead. It will be a pleasure to go ahead and provide evidences of them calling me WP:ADVOCACY editor without prior evidence. It's painful! I am by this bringing to your attention the Libelous content found on the Lead. Thanks Fugabus (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see nothing libellous in the lede. Biafra is not an independent state. It has no independent government. It holds no independent elections. Neither Ekpa calling himself a 'prime minister' nor his own supporters describing him thus makes him one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested, related discussion: User_talk:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång#Attention_please. As I stated in my OP at Talk:Simon_Ekpa#Calling_Ekpa_Prime_Minister_in_wiki-voice, I pretty much agree with ATG, but as I also stated further down in that thread, I can live with the current version "He is the self-declared prime minister of a government-in-exile, the Biafra Republic Government in Exile (BRGIE), which was founded in 2023." if I must. Somewhat surprisingly, at least according to WP, the bar to being a government-in-exile is saying you are a government-in-exile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to @Reading Beans, since they're mentioned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been accusations here of impartiality by @Fugabus. My view is that Fugabus miss-translates some key finnish vocabulary, another examples is here about the use of the term lawyer, when finnish sources don't support the term. Fugabus also repetedly claim they have translated finnish terms, but never provide evidence for their work, while when I check the Yle, Kuvalehti sources myself the sources actually say something different. The finnish source material such as Yle and Kuvalehti never treat Ekpa as an prime minister, but rather that the term is controversial pointing this out by the fact that he calls himself prime minister such as here^[1]. Despite these things being made clear, Fugabus often cites wiki rules and has even thrown around that some of these Finnish sources having been clickbait. Which is not true, Yle has for several years been the most trusted and popular news source in the Finnish language.^[2][3][4][5] Yle even did a reportage in the territory in question where they interviewed people there.

This leads me to suspect that Fugabus is the biased one, based on above, it seems like they employ selective translating or confirmation bias. Accuracy should be maintained. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @AndyTheGrump and ping to all editors.

May I say you may be breft of the rights of government-in-exile per your submission.

Kindly read Government-in-exile#Activities (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-in-exile#Activities) for clear understanding of this very dispute.

They have rights to hold elections or amend or revise its own constitution under international law. Read also past and present Exile governments. Ojukwu was their first president and later fled to Exile with his government. Please, first familiarize yourself with the topic before contributing. Read the Finnish Wikipedia. which I failed to properly wikilink in the above submission from me. One of the template tag on Simon Ekpa article page clearly stated that editors can help translate the corresponding Finnish Wikipedia to the English one and I seek to apply it judiciously.

For @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, the Exile government is headquartered the US according to report. What makes you feel they are not a government-in-exile and that they are just claiming to be?

That Finnish Wikipedia evaluated him being a "Prime Minof Biafra in exile ister" is highly interesting to note for every editor on the English Wikipedia.

Familiarize with government-in-exile and their activities as we reach a conclusive consensus here.

.

Sincerely,

Fugabus (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per your source "The Biafra Republic Government in Exile says it has opened an administrative office in Maryland Baltimore, USA." The org/Ekpa says that. It has all the value of WP:ABOUTSELF. And I just said above, that at least according to WP, anything that says it is a gie, is a gie. That's why I can live with the current WP-version as I said above, since, at least according to WP, it's technically correct regarding gie [insert quote from Futurama]. And here we see the interesting effect of the name Ekpa choose for his org: every time a source mentions it by name, it sort of "affirms" it is what it says it is. Possibly rather clever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The kuvalehti source actually covers this, their 'finance minister' lives there. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[5] "A two-story house from the suburbs of Maryland in the United States has been purchased as the actual central office. The Minister of Finance of the Refugee Board lives there." per GT? I'll take your word for it. The org has a US-office. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, but not ... 'of the refugee board' but 'of the government of exile', the word for refugee, asylum seeker and exile is the same in finnish :D Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I assumed, and why we need people like you to watch how GT is used on WP. I used GT on a Romanian source for an article about a dog, and was told that the dog used to be a chicken. It was fairly clear chicken meant puppy in context, but things can be trickier than that. Like the Swedish word "val" can mean election, choice or whale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word used to mean what 'ed' or 'svära ed' means today, or what finniah 'vala' means ;). Though this is probably getting off topic now haha Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest @Kennet.mattfolk should stay neutral on this dispute resolution and allow uninvolved editors except Reading Beans and Gråbergs Gråa Sång to contribute as you were never pinged and you never called me WP:ADVOCACY editor per the main dispute submission. Meanwhile I have replied to your unfounded accusations here on your talk as I don't wish to deviate from the ongoing discussion like you just did and other editors should take not of it. Fugabus (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fugabus

Ok, again, accusations, your 'reply' here weren't about the topic at hand, even there your wrongly cited information from finnish wiki in your attempt, only looking at the lead and not body. Now here, your telling me to frack off, this doesn't concern me, even though I keep telling you, your getting finnish language things wrong. Thus you 'translating' the meaning of prime minister without actually checking what the source states about the term, hence you seem to employ confirmation bias. Which I also showed in my original post in this dispute above. You show no evidence of my bias, you just level the accusations, when confronted you try to distract me away (like you posted on my talk page, to go read govt in exile) or directly telling me to leave now.

Now you just went and copy pasted the stuff that you originally posted at my talk page.. spamming pings to people to several talk pages but with the same post. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fugabus, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of this noticeboard. Along, apparently with multiple core Wikipedia policies. What Wikipedia's article has to say on the subject of governments in exile has no bearing whatsoever on whether the disputed content in the Ekpa biography is libellous or not. That depends solely on what independent published sources directly discussing Ekpa have to say on him. And we don't cite Finnish Wikipedia as a source, either, read WP:RS. And no, you don't get to decide who comments here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, @Kennet.mattfolk I offended you and I apologize by pasting that mess on your talk page. It was a technical error from my end. Not intentional! Per your submission that the Finance minister lives in the US, Here's another secondary source coverage of their Chief of Staff.

Fugabus (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source may be more reliable than the previous. People's daily

Sincerely,

Fugabus (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um what's the purpose of that source? Clearly what amounts to a press release by the Biafra Republic is not reliable for anything but their views. Nil Einne (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the purpose is obvious. It's to expose the "irresponsible and rascality" nature of the "Biafra Republic's" enemies. Wonderful. I do love it when Wikipedia exposes a bit of rascality.DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further comment rather than the one submitted by Kenneth and Grab. I want only add that Biafra does not, cannot and have not conducted any election nor any activity done by an independent or semi independent country. If they do, then, Fugabus should provide a reliable source stating so. Best, Reading Beans 20:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if uninvolved editors with a familiarity of Indian news sources would be willing to take a look at recent editing at Babu Singh Kushwaha. There has been a spate of edit warring involving sockpuppetry there recently; the article is now protected, but the existing article makes some fairly major claims about the subject being responsible for some killings, and all based on a single source (the Indian Express). A second source is cited, but it doesn't support the assertion about the killings. WP:RSP has the Indian Express as generally reliable, so the content is probably legit, but I had to change the wording a bit (from 'he was alleged to have killed' to 'he was alleged to have been responsible for the killings') to make it align with the source, and I'd like more eyes on it. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is persistently being misrepresented by 174.208.235.142 as a "Teacher, Innkeeper and B&B owner", without any valid supporting citations. 174.208.235.142 adds statements about Aeschliman's alleged occupation and about how he inherited certain buildings, again without providing evidence.

The obvious purpose is to mischaracterise Aeschliman. In fact, as all the evidence shows, the subject of the article is an eminent, well-known university professor, writer, scholar and literary critic.

The subject's biography section has also been deleted by 174.208.235.142 without good reason.

Moreover, 174.208.235.142 has gratuitously attached warnings to the article about a "major contributor" having a "close connection" with the subject, and that some of the article's sources may not be reliable. No evidence of this has been provided on the article's "Talk" page. There is a fair range of contributors to the article; its citations are numerous and, as far as one can tell, legitimate.

There is no evidence of serious, bona fide editing by 174.208.235.142. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that this is a case of vandalism by 174.208.235.142, seeking to ridicule Aeschliman, possibly for personal or ideological reasons.

Please take measures to prevent this recurrent behaviour by 174.208.235.142.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamara Santerra (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scintillating edit history there. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A. Roderick-Grove for more. 'S all from me for now. JFHJr (㊟) 20:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have flagged the article on Masayoshi Son because it does not appear to offer a NPOV. My concern is that statements in the summary section and in the section on the Vision Fund are unbalanced and potentially libelous, as they overwhelmingly contain negative opinions on the subject's character. These editorialized, sometimes hyperbolic characterizations are restated verbatim to paint an overall negative picture of his reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmlandsavannahpuck (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite repeated requests not to do that, Snezhana Abarzhi continues to push claims of scientific priority in her article, through a proxy editor (an employee of the American Physical Society), sourced only to her own publications; see recent edits. The subject is notable but the recent edits are I think promotional and not good. I wish to disengage with this subject despite creating the article as she has been antagonistic by email and I have weak evidence that she has engaged in off-wiki harassment of me. Perhaps more eyes on the article would help? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]