Talk:Jamaal Bowman

Fire alarm incident

His interest in the Wu-Tang Clan has more coverage here than his bizarre stunt with the fire alarm in Congress. One would imagine the latter is more worthy of inclusion. The editors who keep removing it point to ''point of view'' issues as if excluding any mention of this incident isn't a point of view in the other direction. Vaguely calling it ''news'' isn't any better. Killuminator (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to open a discussion on this. I understand there's some concerns about WP:NOTNEWS, but I think it's due to include, as it's now being covered not just in edge-case tabloids like the Post, but in reliable sources like NBC, The Hill, Forbes, the previous source Politico, Axios, USA Today, The Independent and others. Furthermore, there's reportedly a motion being prepared to expel him for this (which I would say is pretty significant), so given that, I'm beginning to think it's a fair piece to include. I'm not entirely opposed to waiting a bit for others (NYT, WaPo etc) to cover it, but given the current coverage and apparent significance I'm leaning towards inclusion. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

(A point of correction on my own comment: NYT seemingly are covering it, though not in its own article yet. Take this as you will.) ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

i think its valid, it is factual he pulled the alarm, he even admitted to it. regardless of any consequences, its a valid even that is drawing a lot of scrutiny against him as its a very controversial thing to do and then blame it on "i was in a rush" I thought it was a door control. Who confuses a FIRE ALARM, for a Door Lock? the entire Capital and Cannon Building use RFID Badges to get you through doors, there are no BUTTONS or PULL HANDLES for door access unless its a handicap plate for disability reasons.

This is factual news and a factual event now. AndrewM81 (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

and yes, a draft of expulsion and/or censure has been validated for this. so how is this libel or something not worthy? he stopped a congressional proceeding and his own party was trying to delay the vote right up to the point he pulled the alarm. AndrewM81 (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

more and more, this incident is pointing to an intentional act. its been noted that the two signs on the door, were taken down, one being in his hands as he pulls the station. furtherance its being said now that he did not even trigger the door itself, rather, bumped the door, then took down the signs, pulled the station, walked away to another door and out of the Cannon House. AndrewM81 (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) His interest in the Wu-Tang Clan has been documented for years, and his fire alarm incident just happened, what, an hour ago? False equivalence. It may be that my initial opposition, suggesting that this is WP:NOTNEWS, is not correct, but there should be no rush to add it while we wait to see if there actually is some sort of repercussion. This edit, Killuminator, is clearly not WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't even know what the equivalence is about. The interest in a group of musicians is given an inordinate amount of space in that section while the alarm incident is given none at all, a bizarre action of a Congressman during a tense time in Congress is given no inclusion while a trivial bit about his hobbies has his own quotes. Killuminator (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You comparing this page covering the Wu-Tang Clan versus not (yet) including the fire alarm is a false equivalence that takes away from an actual discussion that could result in including the content. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm the one who started the discussion in the first place after seeing the edit wars. Killuminator (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This puts him on the same level as the January 6 insurrectionists. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 24.189.122.152 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Surely this and the above are satire? The Cannon House and the Capitol are two completely separate buildings, a quarter-mile away. Zaathras (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I wish it were satire. The false equivalences are bizarre. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

wrong, while yes, the Cannon House is not directly and physically linked to the Captial Building, it is however linked for the alarms, the Capital was evacuated which directly resulted in the disruption of a vote actively being cast. At the same time, Democrats were also trying to delay and even pushed to adjourn the vote from the session. this is way to coincidental that he just completely gaffed the word FIRE https://nypost.com/2023/10/01/new-pics-douse-jamaal-bowmans-excuses-for-house-fire-alarm-gaffe/ on a pull station would not sound a system wide alarm, rather than just unlock a door. and looking at the photos of that same door, yeah, no, not buying it AT ALL. This is about as clear cut as disruption and obstruction as you can get. No way a man who is formerly a Teacher and a Principal makes a mistake a huge as this and then claims "oh, i thought the fire alarm would just open the door" ..... We the People are saying - MISS US with that nonsense. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) ripped down two signs warning a second floor door in the Cannon House Office Building was for emergency use only before pulling the fire alarm and running out through a different door on a different floor.

It appears this is now looking to be an intentional act. This is a leak from someone who watched the security footage. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You can of course provide a source for these fanciful claims? Zaathras (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

While this is almost certainly going to be DUE, I would caution that we wait and see what actually happens before adding much beyond it happened. The facts are currently unclear and the ramifications aren't clear either. Time will help and ultimately there is no hurry to get the information into the article right away. As a BLP we should err on the side of caution before adding too much (especially anything speculative or accusatory). Springee (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

So, since its a BLP, his controversial actions with direct consequences should be ignored? Despite the evidence points to a deliberate and criminal act? AndrewM81 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Look at the discussion below. In the end the things you are suggesting may be correct or maybe not. However, if we take a slow, wait and see approach, even if that means the article lags behind the news by a full year, that's fine. Wikipedia is the place people should go to find what happened in the past, not to track late breaking news. The great thing about waiting is we don't have to second guess what is/isn't going to prove to be correct in the future since it will now be something that happened in the past. Springee (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Since his office is claiming that it was an accident, and since there are cameras everywhere, I propose that we add either video footage or a still image of it to the article. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I propose, no. A grainy surveillance image is giving too much coverage to this story. Zaathras (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait until the story plays out. If this results in something more than one side claiming it's the worst thing since the Civil War and the other side saying he confused it with a door release, well then it won't amount to much. However, if it results in some sort of sanction/legal ramifications etc then pictures may be DUE. Springee (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

a newly released photo of the same door has completely debunked his claims https://nypost.com/2023/10/01/new-pics-douse-jamaal-bowmans-excuses-for-house-fire-alarm-gaffe/

You cannot tell me he is that ignorant of PLAINLY written English. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

adding to it, at the same time, the Democrats were actively trying to delay and even trying to get the session adjourned for the very vote he was claiming to be getting to. this is too coincidental that he pulls the fire alarm that activated the alarms on the Capital Grounds. The Cannon House is actually linked to the Capital Building itself for the Alarms, and both were evacuated. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Based on the evidence I have my personal views on if this was a mistake or not. But I also think we need to follow a cautious approach here. If it takes a week or a month or a year for the details to sort themselves out, that's fine. WP:NOHURRY says we don't need to rush to create articles. In my view, we don't need to rush to put negative content about people in articles either. Yes, that means the negative news that almost certainly will be DUE at some point can wait. It's better that we creep up on the appropriate level vs violate the BLP idea of do no harm but over emphasizing or including speculation early. Springee (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

now claims that he pulled down to key signs, threw them on the floor, then pulled the fire alarm and went out a different door, via someone who has access to the footage.

"Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) ripped down two signs warning a second floor door in the Cannon House Office Building was for emergency use only before pulling the fire alarm and running out through a different door on a different floor" AndrewM81 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

story is playing out faster than you thought it was. more and more this points to intentional act. AndrewM81 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

According to what? Do you have any reliable sources? Note that the WP:NYPOST is definitely not one. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. This should have never been added. If it is added, we certainly cannot imply that anything that only shows up in NYPOST is factual. Andre🚐 17:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

oh right, because wiki only wants unbiased opinions. yet censure plenty of unbiased websites and factual statements, but not the ones who actually portray information as truth. more and more is coming out from this. the white thing in his hand, matches the size of the signs in the door, he threw them on the floor, then pulled the station, then ran off to yet another door. AndrewM81 (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

So, you have no reliable sources for your insinuations then? What we have his his statement that he "mistakenly" pulled the alarm and a Capitol Police statement that agrees with Bowman's telling (that he tried to open the door, then pulled the alarm). I see nothing about throwing signs on the floor, perhaps because I won't click on a link from the WP:NYPOST unless it's to their sports section. Their political coverage is heavily biased to the point of being inaccurate and unreliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

CNN, NBC, and Washington Post are heavily biased as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.37.235.3 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Being biased does not in and of itself preclude the use of a source on Wikipedia, unless you are alleging that they are so biased that they are making things up out of whole cloth without basic journalistic standards of fact checking and editoral control. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Like Russiagate, or Hunter's laptop conspiracy theory. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This incident absolutely should be included as a political controversy, even if the action was accidental. There has been ample coverage. starship.paint (RUN) 04:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a misdemeanor charge now. Killuminator (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That would certainly qualify for coverage. Andre🚐 21:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Bowman pleaded guilty to the charge today: https://www.cnn.com/bowman-fire-alarm-plea/index.html Jguzzy1313 (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it's a plea deal, and the charge will be dropped. Bowman’s sentencing will be deferred for three months. During that time, Bowman will be on probation, will pay a $1,000 fine and will write an apology letter to the US Capitol Police. If he fulfills these terms, prosecutors will drop the charge at his sentencing hearing on January 29. Andre🚐 22:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he took a plea deal in which he pleaded guilty for falsely pulling a fire alarm. We don't know his intent in pulling the fire alarm, but we do know that he pulled it and is taking responsibility for pulling it. Jguzzy1313 (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, he took a plea deal. They offered to dismiss the charge if he apologizes. This can be included in the article, in my view. Andre🚐 23:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Comparison to January 6

These reliable sources have mentioned that some people have compared this to the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Bowman himself has responded to these comparisons. I think this should be included. What do others think of including this?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/26/jamaal-bowman-fire-alarm-fine

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KYu5-eXphggJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/05/jamaal-bowman-capitol-riot-supreme-court/&hl=en&gl=us

https://newrepublic.com/post/175902/republicans-attack-jamal-bowman-fire-alarm

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/09/30/democrat-rep-bowman-triggered-fire-alarm-ahead-of-house-vote-to-stall-shutdown/?sh=15bbf8805a6d

https://www.barrons.com/news/us-congressman-fined-for-setting-off-fire-alarm-6123c8ff

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-169/issue-201/house-section/article/H6189-1?s=1&r=30

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. Not a fair comparison. This entire event should be very minor in the biography. Excessive detail is potentially POV COATRACK. Andre🚐 23:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Bowman responded by calling it "crazy" that the comparison would be made. He's right. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FRINGE apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Lol, no. Zaathras (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Pulling the fire alarm is less serious since it is a misdemeanor, but insurrecting the government from counting the electoral colleges is a very serious felonious charge (and a different story). So, no it cannot be compared to January 6th. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Fire alarm: it's WP:DUE to be accurate

I'm sorry to see that an editor reverted a couple edits I made, which I believe added material essential to the understanding of the incident. Without them, our article fails to include important and undisputed facts:

• Bowman tore off two warning signs before pulling the fire alarm.
• He didn't try to open the door after.
• Bowman walked by Capitol Police and failed to alert them to what he'd done (resulting in the evacuation of the building).
• Because of the above, he clearly lied when claiming that he'd pulled the alarm to open the door.
• His talking points, issued weeks later, perpetuated the initial lie that it was "accidental".

These facts were widely reported (I've included two sources besides the NY Post and can cite more). The facts are WP:DUE because, if Bowman's Wikipedia article includes this incident, we owe it to our encyclopedia and our readers to present the truth—and without the above facts, one could easily misunderstand the incident. To suggest that what Bowman actually did that day—which is on video for all to see—is somehow WP:UNDUE, given that there is considerable material about the incident in the article, seems to me an obvious error. Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's too much WP:DETAIL for a summary-style encyclopedia. What's important is that he pulled the fire alarm, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, and was censured. Your addition today, including your WP:SYNTH to claim that Bowman lied, is inappropriate for a WP:BLP. It is indeed WP:UNDUE. My reversion was not at all in error. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree—and in the discussion above, numerous editors articulated their belief that this specific material does belong in the article. The issue at the time was ostensibly reliability, and indeed you yourself argued that the NY Post was unreliable and requested that others provide WP:RS—but you did not suggest that the material was WP:UNDUE. If you believed it undue, why ask for RS? As a side note, I'd argue that the overall reliability of the NY Post isn't an issue when the facts for which it is cited are instantly verifiable from authenticated video. And in terms of WP:SYNTH, while that certainly applies to articles in Wikivoice, accusing me of it on the Talk page smacks of overpolicing, no? In any case, deliberately omitting the critical factual details of what Bowman did—while retaining significant and specific detail about the aftermath of his actions—simply makes no sense and runs contrary to the mission and purpose of our encyclopedia. Ekpyros (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In what way are these specific details critical? We're not here to WP:SYNTH and just claim that he lied, that's not for us to decide. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the input—and the question!

As you'll see in the first of my two edits, I never wrote that Bowman "lied"—I simply said (as published in numerous RS) that "video footage subsequently contradicted his explanation". My personal conclusion, as reflected in my Talk page comments, is that his explanation was dishonest—but I carefully did not state that in Wikivoice. In other words, the prior complaint was not that either of my reverted edits violated WP:SYNTH—but rather that my Talk page comment did. It's not my understanding that Wikipedia's WP:SYNTH guidance applies to comments on Talk pages—but if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.

As to detail, I think I listed most of the important material that's been excised by the reversion in my initial list at the top of the thread. But perhaps there's a better way to make a brief comparison. Leaving out the political brouhaha, here's the factual summary of the incident as described in my edit—with the now-reverted information I'd added underlined and non-italicized for emphasis:

— Bowman pulled a fire alarm.

— Bowman said it was an accident; he thought the alarm would open the door.

— Bowman repeated that it was an accident in talking points to allies.

+ Video was released, revealing that Bowman in fact:

+ Tried the door.

+ Tore off two emergency signs and discarded them.

+ Pulled the fire alarm.

+ Never tried the door (contradicting his explanation).

+ As the building was being evacuated, Bowman passed numerous uniformed Capitol Police—but failed to inform them that the alarm was a false one which he had caused.

— Bowman pled guilty to knowingly and willfully setting off the alarm.

Try reading through the above, both with and without the underlined portions. I hope that makes it obvious why the reversion could completely change a reader's understanding of the incident—starting with the most obvious question: why did Bowman suddenly plead guilty to knowingly committing an offense which he'd repeatedly insisted was accidental and unintentional? A reader can't know, because the current version of our article relies entirely on Bowman's explanation for the description of what happened. There's mention of "a Capitol Police investigation"—but neither evidence on which it relied, nor Bowman's statements to investigators. There's a photo of Bowman pulling the alarm, but our article gives no clue as to its provenance.

Given the above, I must admit to being utterly baffled as to why an experienced Wikipedia editor would insist that we include a offender's dishonest description of and excuse for his crime—while censoring the indisputable truth of what actually occurred, even after he's pled guilty. Perhaps someone more experienced than I can enlighten me:

1. Why include this incident, but willfully omit both that it was captured on video and what truly happened?

2. How can the basic facts of a crime included in Wikipedia be WP:UNDUE—while the perpetrator's self-serving statements, which are flatly contradicted by those facts and his subsequent guilty plea, are somehow WP:DUE?

3. Is this sort of thing common practice in our encyclopedia? If so, surely there must be numerous examples?

Thanks in advance! Ekpyros (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

How is it UNDUE? WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.. You haven't indicated why we need to expand this. What's important beyond him pulling the alarm is the plea and the censure. His initial explanation is already countered inline with McCarthy's comment. We could probably stand to drop Bowman's initial explanation and McCarthy's response, though I don't expect that to happen. video footage subsequently contradicted his explanation appears to be your WP:OR.

While we're on this topic, isn't it UNDUE to have one of three paragraphs in the lead be about the fire alarm incident? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

If anything, it's far more due to have even more detail in one of those three paragraphs. The page for Paul Gosar has a relatively lengthy and detailed passage on Gosar's censure, which was for an edited anime video posted on twitter, and this has been the case for years. Bowman's is for a criminal act occurring inside the Capitol premises, during House business.

@Ekpyros

As others have mentioned, Wikipedia's consensus is that one of the sources you are utilizing, the Post, is not usable for sourcing, while another, the Washington Examiner, is non-consensus. I don't see any issue with describing what's included in the Forbes piece, which provides an actual objective descriptor of events based on video, rather than "Bowman says X, Repubs react with Y". The details can also be found in The Hill's coverage of the incident, given details from video release. If anything, there would be an issue if it is left out. This is in line what Wikipedia has for content on Gosar and has had for years, which provides an objective and detailed description of the offending incident rather than merely pushing Gosar's own description and then how Dems responded. It's a concise and straightforward addition to make, Bowman pulled a fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building, causing the building to be evacuated for an hour and a half... to Bowman pulled a fire alarm after removing nearby warning signs regarding alarmed doors in the Cannon House Office Building. The alarm caused the building to be evacuated for an hour and a half... This also relevant given Bowman's claim that he thought pulling a fire alarm results in doors opening, mentioned right after. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

@Muboshgu: You twice reverted an IP who added Category:American conspiracy theorists and Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists. Please explain. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

This was pretty simple to discover with a minute of research. Bowman once had a blog that contained some posts about 9/11 trutherism, but has since recanted, so he can no longer be categorized as one. Unless you think Category:American ex-conspiracy theorists and Category:Ex-9/11 conspiracy theorists would be worthwhile to create. Zaathras (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Zaathras is correct. This is a BLP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Protect the article.

Do you think we should because it best if we do extend projected (blue lock with e) since now conservative media like New York Post are calling him far left which he is not necessarily what his views are or attacking him harshly just for simple or not that smart mistakes. So, to prevent vandalism and bias, it is best that we protect the article. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You can find the Wikipedia policy on this at WP:PREEMPTIVE: "Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse is occurring by multiple users and at a frequency that warrants protection." We’re not there yet. If that becomes the case though, you can make a request at WP:RFPP. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Now let save Jamaal Bowman's article from biased editors. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added this description with citations to The New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, and Punchbowl News. Progressive is a rather vague term and these are all reliable sources who describe him as "far left" or a member of "the far left". Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The article already says up above that he is "a member of the far left." I reverted the most recent change since most of the articles cited, including the NYT one added today, do not directly describe Bowman as "far-left" but rather, describe his membership in the "far-left" Squad. I think the previous text was more accurate so I reverted it. Also it the previous phrasing "Bowman joined the Squad...and is far left" had a grammatical tense issue that I think the prior version handled better. Cityonpyre (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no difference between being far-left and being a member of the far-left squad. He’s in the squad, he is far-left. AOC’s page lists her as a left-wing politician. Bowman’s should include the same label or far-left as the media has described. 108.29.110.53 (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the anon. "He's a member of far-left X" and "He's far left" is generally both mean that he's far left as far as political articles go. Not that it matters since we have reliable sources doing both "far left firebrand" and "member of the far left squad".

Also, WP:WEIGHT is not applicable to this @Cityonpyre (in response to your edit comment), that's about how much space/attention to devote to an aspect of the subject not about descriptors that are well-sourced. It's also not acceptable to remove citations (you removed two to the New York Times) but I assume that it was unintentional, just be more careful going forward Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a change to The Squad page too? Because The Squad is described as Left Wing, not Far Left. Any description change to Bowman here would need The Squad to be described as "Left Wing to Far-Left" as The Squad only has a few members EnbyEditor (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

While this is true, the description of ideology also often includes how the person themselves self describes as. To my knowledge there is no reliable source claiming Jamaal has referred to himself as far-left (if you want an example of this, read a page of a living person and check the source on why they're described as such, ie. Vaush or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon). It also doesn't make sense as that title is usually reserved for political revolutionaries. EnbyEditor (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not saying that he describes himself as far left. We're saying he's far left, which sourcing supports. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You misread what I wrote EnbyEditor (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would people biased towards him be against describing him as far-left if he were far-left? People are usually excited to have people agree with them. EnbyEditor (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

DSA Membership

In May, Bowman claimed that he did not let his membership lapse Bowman Makes Amends With Democratic Socialists After Rift Over Israel - The New York Times (nytimes.com). Is there any proof to this claim? Should it be included? 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)