Talk:David Adedeji Adeleke

Davido Citizenship

Why is this article saying "Nigerian American". Does he hold a US passport? Or is that what he calls himself?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jamie Tubers: Davido's official website states that he was born in Atlanta, Georgia to Nigerian parents. MTV Base also states that he was born in Atlanta, Georgia. (source:[1]). This makes him a Nigerian American since Nigerian American means an American of Nigerian ancestry. Akon is a perfect example of this. He was born in America to Senegalese parents, thus a Senegalese American. I hope you understand the concept. If Akon and Davido were born in American to non Nigerian and Senegalese parents, they would simply be Americans. According to this source, Davido holds both Nigerian and American passports. versace1608 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to add. By American law, once someone is born in America, that person is automatically an American. versace1608 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well.... As I understand Nigerian American to mean, it means someone who has both Nigerian and American Citizenship. OR the person himself claims he is Nigerian American. A perfect example of this is Chiwetel Ejiofor and Lupita Nyong'o. They are both born in diaspora to their african parents. But while the former claims he is just british, the later claims she is Mexican Kenyan.

BTW, I just searched and I see the article is onpoint. --Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of material

I removed material on bar fights Diff of Davido. WP:BLPCRIME calls for the exclusion of such material unless charges have been laid. Comments are welcome. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Bar fights are not necessarily a crime. Why should they automatically be classified as crimes if no one was murdered? The incident at the bar gained a lot of media attention in Nigeria. If it wasn't important, it wouldn't have garnered so much media attention.Versace1608 (Talk) 18:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The section "Controversial incidents" was 600 words on a thousand word article (60 per cent of the total article!), giving these two incidents undue weight. The second incident had only one source. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: 60 percent of an article is a lot. Again, I don't understand what you meant by undue weight. The second incident had 3 sources, not one. [2] [3] [4] I told you already that I will remove comments made by Davido and his publicist. Apart from that, I don't see any other reason why the section can't remain. The first section is notable enough to be included in the article; a bar fight is not a crime and shouldn't be treated as such. The second section is also notable to be included in the article because it is backed by reliable sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 19:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What I mean by undue weight is if these two incidents consume 60% of the article it means that these incidents is what the fellow is most known for, as opposed to his music career. Remember we're writing an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or tabloid newspaper. Will these two incidents still be considered noteworthy and remarkable five years from now? Ten years from now? -- Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: This incident is not what the artist is known for. This incident has significant coverage in reliable sources, and this is why it is important. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have gotten so much coverage. As the years go by, this article will expand, and this incident will not make up 60% of the article. It will still be considered noteworthy. While many people will remember Davido for his music, he will also be remember for this incident. A perfect example is Michael Jackson. Many people know him for his music, and others know him for the child abuse allegation. Now to what I was writing before you posted. I just read the copyright section you left prior to leaving the "Removal of material" section. Other than adding the comments of Davido and his publicist, I didn't violate the sources I cited. All of the information I added was written by me. The copyright infringement note you left earlier doesn't corroborate with the statements I just made. I want to clarify what you meant. Are you saying that in addition to adding quotations, I violated Wikipedia's Copyright policy by adding contents word for word? On the contrary, are you saying that the sources I quoted cannot be used? Is that why you said that the incident only had one source? If you don't count the Punch source, there are more sources online. There are too many sources on this incident. [5] [6] [7][8]. I wanted to add the section again just now, but I don't want to risk getting block by you or by another administrator. I want us to talk about this and get to the bottom of this. Versace1608 (Talk) 20:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if you misunderstood. The copyright content referred to in the section above was the material removed in this diff, which was found in conjunction with this copyright investigation. There were three phrases copied directly from the source, which I removed.

Regarding re-adding the content, once material has been challenged, you shouldn't re-add it unless there's consensus to do so on the talk page. Re-adding material once it's been challenged is (as you probably know) called WP:edit warring, and it's something you can be blocked for. Edit warring to restore contentious material on a biography of a living person (BLP) is definitely something you should not do. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information on Wikipedia's policies on BLPs. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask you this. Apart from the quotations (which I said that I will remove), is there any other problem you have with the section? And If there are, list them here. If there aren't, there's no reason to label the section as "a challenged material". Versace1608 (Talk) 21:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The section you're referring to has nothing to do with the controversial incident section. Versace1608 (Talk) 21:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I am still waiting for a response. I am not satisfied with where we're at. If you don't respond, I will be taking this to an administrative noticeboard. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have already listed the problems I have with the section both here and on my user talk page. Here's a recap:

• The section "Controversial incidents" was 600 words on a thousand word article (60 per cent of the total article!), giving these two incidents undue weight. What I mean by undue weight is that when these incidents the article is not balanced and neutral, and gives the impression that these incidents are what the fellow is most known for, as opposed to his music career. Remember we're writing an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or tabloid newspaper.
• The fact that other biographies contain BLP violations is no reason to include them here.
• The fact that you're able to source negative content on a living person does not mean it automatically qualifies for inclusion in their article.
• We don't base content decisions, especially in our BLPs, on what would be "fair" to the real world persons involved. We do however especially with our BLPs, strive to avoid doing real-world harm to living persons.
• Material that's been challenged, especially contentious negative information on a BLP, should not be re-added unless you get consensus on the talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

As the creator of the article. let me just drop my comment. I understand the angle Diana is coming from. That controversy section just keeps staring at my face anytime I am reading the article. I wanted to comment on it before but probably ignored it.

But I still feel it would be very appropriate with Wikipedia policy and guidelines to dedicate a sentence or a line of text of the incident in the article. Darreg (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The section should stay: Everyone knows that Davido bullies people. I just think the section was too detailed for unfiled cases. It truely looked like some gossip stuff. It shouldn't even contain subsections IMO. The section can be summarized into few lines with summarized sentences on the notable incidents and several references.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely not gossip. The references that I added, and the ones that I mentioned on this talk page are all reliable sources. Diannaa said that it is "poorly source". I don't know how The Punch, Premium Times, Global Excellence, and allAfrica are all "poor references". These are some of the best newspapers in Africa. Maybe if the NY Times had reported on the incident, the content won't be consider "poorly source" in Diannaa's opinion. Versace1608 (Talk) 12:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• the section is obviously not poorly sourced! And I know it's not a gossip, I only said it looked like it. The section should stay anyway! I just think it should be summarized.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jamie! I don't think that these two incidents belong in the article at all. In the first incident, in November 2013, members of Davido's entourage were involved in a bar fight. Davido was not involved in the fight, though he was present in the bar that night. This incident, which is not even about Davido but about members of his entourage, is not significant enough in my opinion to include in his biography. The activities of his entourage should not be placed here, in his WP:BLP. It's negative information about someone else that could give a negative impression of the subject of this article. That's not allowed per our BLP rules.

In the second incident, we have newspapers reporting that someone made accusations toward Davido in 2012, accusations which he later denied. Stuff like this does not belong in the Wikipedia article per WP:BLPCRIME, which states that we should not include material about possible criminal activity until and unless a conviction is secured, no matter how good the sourcing. I can see that both of you believe these incidents are starting to give the man a reputation for violence, but unless you have a reliable source saying that, I think it should stay out of the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The first incident is a bit trivial and if it doesn't get added back, it will be because of that. Now to the second incident. An incident doesn't always lead to a conviction. OJ Simpson was acquitted and didn't get a conviction, yet information about the incident are part of his biographical article on Wikipedia. The same thing goes for Bill Clinton who was also acquitted in the Monica Lewinsky's sex scandal. The point that I'm driving at is that not all incident will lead to a conviction. One cannot diminish or dismiss an incident just because it didn't lead to a conviction. The incident is very important. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have gotten so much media attention. You are entitled to your opinion, and so am I. I do not agree with what you're saying, and no matter what the outcome is, some people will know Davido for this incident as well as for his music. Also, this incident will in no way overshadow his music career. People generally like musicians for their music, and not their personal lives. A perfect example of this is Michael Jackson, the legendary King of Pop who will always be remember for his music first and foremost. Versace1608 (Talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that, unlike the persons you mention, Davido was never even charged, whereas the cases you mention were all the subject of very high profile trials that were heavily covered in the press for months or even years. According to this article in the Premium Times, he went to the police station and gave a statement, and the police were satisfied with that, and the matter was dropped. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to take sides with Davido and his camp, go ahead. I have said enough. From my point of view, this incident is notable enough to be included in the article. Not including it in the article doesn't take away from its notability and significance. I rest my case. Moving on. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Rich and Mighty are NEVER convicted in Nigeria for assault!, especially when its an uneducated cab driver that is involved. Darreg (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You can say that again. Dianaa obviously doesn't know what goes on in Nigeria with regards to this situation. @Darreg: and @Jamie Tubers: I am going to write the second incident over and add it to the talk page. If you guys agree to what I write, the second incident can be added back to the article. Another user told me that the second incident can be added if a consensus is reached. I wasn't able to get much help from the noticeboards. Versace1608 (Talk) 20:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)