![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 February 2020. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
In this thread, I am going to demonstrate these five aspects:
1) There is a distortion of the content of the Premium Times "exclusive report";
2) The investigation of the EFCC has nothing to do directly with Segun Adebutu's behavior;
3) There are no reliable sources that indicate there was detention;
4) The investigation was triggered by a rival company of Segun Adebutu's father, with the intention to "dominate a section of the betting business in Nigeria"
5) Finally, since the investigation triggered by Conflict of Interest wasn't conclusive, and summarily dismissed, the section should be deleted.
The article says that per Premium Times exclusive report, Segun Adebutu was detained and questioned. This is false information, that doesn't check with the original content reported by Premium Times.
Kessington Adebutu, Nigeria’s gambling mogul whose business empire has enjoyed decades of patronage as a household name across the country, has become a new target of a vast corruption investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), PREMIUM TIMES can report.
As part of the investigation on Tuesday, anti-graft detectives at the EFCC office in Lagos questioned Segun Adebutu, son of the octogenarian, on matters ranging from alleged tax fraud to economic sabotage, sources familiar with the development told PREMIUM TIMES.
—Premium Times, in January, 28th 2020.
As you can see from the original quotation, Segun Adebutu answered questions by EFCC's office. But no information about neither detention, and neither that he, Segun Adebutu, was the target of the investigation.
On the other hand, we can see in the original article:
Mr Adebutu’s business activities recently became a subject of their suspicion following a petition from another betting company, Western Lotto. The December 2019 petition from Western Lotto, run by politician Buruji Kashamu, asked the EFCC to investigate billions of naira in lost government revenues and tax fraud against Mr Adebutu’s Premier Lotto.
—Premium Times, in January, 28th 2020.
As you can see, the investigation was started against Segun Adebutu's father, not against Segun Adebutu. Also, the investigation was started by an unreliable person of interest - a politician owner of a rival company, Buruji Kashamu, which was a wanted person in the U.S. for drug trafficking. Buruji is literally the Nigerian drug kingpin that inspired Orange is the New Black. [3]
Again, on the original report by Premium Times:
Tony Orilade, chief spokesperson for the EFCC, did not immediately return a request seeking comments about the arrest and ongoing investigation into Premier Lotto and other lottery operators.
—Premium Times, in January, 28th 2020.
Again, there is no reliable information on whether it was an arrest or just voluntary answering of questions. This screams conflict of interest and the defamatory campaign started by a rival company. Premium Times original article corroborates with that information:
A lottery commission official confirmed the investigation to PREMIUM TIMES on Tuesday, but accused Mr Kashamu of triggering it because he wanted to dominate a section of the betting business in Nigeria.
“What we learnt is that Buruji Kashamu said he has sole rights to ‘Ghana Games’ in Nigeria,” an official said under anonymity because the lottery commission was still considering a unified response to the EFCC investigation. “But he should not burn down the entire industry to implement his business interests.”
The official said an association of betting companies would soon meet to form a coordinated response to the EFCC investigation that was triggered by Mr Kashamu’s alleged “anti-industry practices.”
—Premium Times, in January, 28th 2020.
Also, as we can see in the Wikipedia article, reliable sources indicate that this investigation started with Conflict of Interest, was not conclusive, and the investigation was summarily dismissed:
Similarly, in January 2020, Premier lotto, Nigeria’s foremost and perhaps, oldest lottery firm became the subject of a routine EFCC inquest to investigate alleged tax evasion based on unsubstantiated accusations from a competitor. An Executive Director of the company and son of the founder, Segun Adebutu, who was incidentally at the Premier Lotto office on the day, was invited to the anti-graft agency’s office for questioning without detainment. After due investigations and further clarifications from the company, the EFCC found no malpractices in the affairs of Premier Lotto and Segun Adebutu. The matter was thereafter summarily dismissed, and the petition was closed.
—Vanguard, in March, 29th 2020.
Also, per Premium Times: the factual basis of Mr Kashamu’s allegations remained unclear at this time as the EFCC is yet to make its findings public. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.179.235 ( talk) 18:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
So, with this stated, there is no reasonable doubt that:
1) The controversy section's of this article was written in a tabloid-esque, defamatory tone, and distorted heavily the original content on Premium Times's original and "exclusive!!!" report
2) Omitted information of extreme relevance such as that Segun Adebutu was not the target of the investigation, and the investigation was started by petition of a politician and owner of a company with COI against Segun Adebutu's father;
3) It should have its content rearranged before a consensus about the exclusion of the controversy part is reached. At least to remove the distortion of sources, defamatory tone of text, and to add the information about the COI.
4) The defamatory campaign was defeated. The case was summarily closed. Wiki shouldn't reverberate such nonsense.
Editors to this biography of living persons should take care to use reliable sources when adding information, especially when it could be considered derogatory. A good start in identifying a reliable source is to see if it has a Wikipedia article. This isn't a guarantee, though. But it helps to rule out low-readership blogs and such. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
There now appear to be conflicting stories from reliable sources about this person's detention. In light of that, the WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy needs to be scrupulously followed. There needs to be multiple reliable sources confirming the negative information, as stated in that policy, not just one. Moreover, the neutral point of view policy probably also requires that the conflicting stories also be mentioned. In that light, I've removed the section until policy can be followed. Perhaps the best plan would be to just give the matter a few days to see what other sources develop. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
That's correct that I'm not an admin and I'm just here at all as a neutral party responding to a posting at WP:EAR. Even if I was an admin, admins have no authority to determine content, but only to enforce rules about conduct. Next, it is to be noted that nothing in the Controversy section would be appropriate were this guy not a public figure, see WP:BLPCRIME. This material is, thus, just barely appropriate and must be balanced. There are what appear to be multiple reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia saying that he was detained and others saying that he was not. In light of WP:PUBLICFIGURE my judgment and experience here at Wikipedia (I've worked in various dispute resolution processes for years) suggests to me that the material can be here, provided that it's properly balanced. As for there being a whole lot that we're missing, Wikipedia reports what's stated in reliable sources and at this point what's in the article is what the reliable sources say, unless there are reliable sources that I'm unaware of that say something else. If there are, then they need to be brought forth and dealt with. If things change and new reports come out, the material can be updated. But because this guy is a public figure, Wikipedia tends in my experience to report things like this about public figures as they develop, rather than waiting until the dust has completely settled. Do I like that and think that it's the way it should be? No, my preference would be that this kind of thing be "old news" and completely sorted out before it gets included here, but that's not the way it is here. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 23:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the controversy section due to the fact that counter argument is also verified by numerous sources. I have added sources at the time of doing changes. Kindly check those. Mudassariqbal59 ( talk) 11:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Additionally, I am post links here for you guys to check that there are authentic sources to counter that controversy section. Here are few links: https://www.chronicle.ng/2020/01/segun-adebutu-not-detained-by-efcc-family/ https://theyesng.com/2020/01/30/segun-adebutu-not-detained-by-efcc-family/ https://themomentng.com/index.php/2020/01/30/segun-adebutu-not-detained-by-efcc-family/ https://topcelebrities.com.ng/segun-adebutu-not-detained-by-efcc-family/ https://thisislagos.ng/segun-adebutu-not-detained-by-efcc-family/ Mudassariqbal59 ( talk) 11:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I am going to contact admin for resolving this issue as it is already causing defamation for my client. We are going to take whatever necessary actions required to remove this section which has nothing to do with the reality. Mudassariqbal59 ( talk) 16:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC) I have contacted the admin and they have told me to disclose my employment status for the client. I have added the details on my page regarding my employment status. I hope, this issue can be resolved now. This column is damaging the repute of my client. I have supported my case with all the references which shows that information given in column is baseless and spread to defame the client. If necessary, we can contact wikipedia for action as it has already caused alot of trouble my client. Still, if you guys want to keep this section then kindly delete this page. Thanks. Mudassariqbal59 ( talk) 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, thanks for telling me about it. I will remove that word and I think so, we can make changes in that column that my client is not detained by citing it with sources too.
{{
request edit}}
template. Regards,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 17:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Kaimano97, the issue on the title of the controversial section has been laid to rest. The title "Controversial" is the default name used by Wikipedia for issues like this. Kindly refer to the talk page before making further editing. Thanks Opelogbon ( talk) 14:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Opelogbon, It is ok that we keep the title of this section as controversy but it is the wikipedia policy to update the content with the latest information. So, I have provided the valuable resource which stated that he was never detained. As a matter of fact, it is the same news publishing agency which has earlier said that he was detained. Kindly check the citation and then do any further change. Thanks Kaimano97 ( talk) 15:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The title of the article is wrong according to Wikipedia policy of criticism. The title of a section can only be termed as "Controversy" when when this is part of the common name of the topic of that article, and the controversy is notable in its own right (as opposed to being part of a larger topic). Kindly check Wikipedia WP:Criticism before altering the title. Thanks Kaimano97 ( talk) 09:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
TransporterMan, can you show me the policy of wikipedia where it states that title of such allegations should be controversy? Everyone is just making their own assumptions here. Kaimano97 ( talk) 09:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.64.124.246 ( talk) 10:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
TransporterMan Waggie Bri Can you please consider another protection on the page? So many anonymous keep deleting the column. It's hard to keep up. Waggie this section should be here but the specific term Controversy is not the right fit for this section according to Wikipedia policy as this term can only be used when it is mentioned by the said reference. People are just reverting it without giving any authentic reference.
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. Please see the reply section below for additional information about this request. |
Information to be added: According to the family source, Segun Adebutu, was neither arrested by the EFCC or any other law enforcement agency. What has been twisted out of context is the dutiful honouring of an invitation from the EFCC as a law-abiding citizen, who has nothing to hide. “The businessman merely opted to go to the EFCC on behalf of his father concerning a petition filed by Senator Buruji Kashamu, an Ogun State politician and the owner of rival lottery company, Western Lotto.” Information to be removed: In a reaction, the family stated that he only honoured the invitation of the anti-graft agency, but was not detained.[9] The Nation (Nigeria) reported that, "According to sources, Segun was never arrested nor detained contrary to rumours being peddled. He was invited and honoured the invitation by visiting the EFCC office in Lagos for few questioning and answer." Explanation of Issue: According to wikipedia policies, it is necessary to keep neutral point of view. I am attaching proper news sources which has used law-abiding citizen word in their news and I did not make something up by my own. Kindly check the sources before making any claim. Regarding that specific "Controversy" word, we cannot use it unless the claims made by a news channel are officially verified by the said agency. A controversy is a prolonged heated discussion between two parties. While in this case, it was not a controversy as it was an argument/claim made by a news channel which was denied by family and also by other channels too by showing his pictures at the time of said detention. Additionally, a person is innocent until proven guilty. So, kindly refrain the usage of specific word controversy because it was not a controversy. One more thing, Wikipedia always follows the neutral point of view and if we have a look at all the claims made by both parties that either he is detained or not, not a single party has used the specific word controversy.So, how can you guys use this specific word when there is no backup references for this specific word. I hope, I made my point clear now. References: https://daylightng.com/segun-adebutu-not-detained-by-efcc-family/ http://exclusivenews.com.ng/baba-ijebu-not-arrested/ https://www.ournigeria.news/baba-ijebu-not-arrested/ https://nationalinsightnews.com/baba-ijebu-not-arrested-by-efcc/ Mudassariqbal59 ( talk) 19:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Sample edit request
|
---|
|
Regards,
Spintendo 01:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Instructions for Submitters: Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution.
Instructions for Submitters: If the rationale for a change is not obvious (particularly for proposed deletions), explain.
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
1. Information to be removed: Controversy Section 2. Explanation of Issue: False accusation made by news channel which was rejected earlier by family of Segun Adebutu and now personally by himself. According to news sources, he was detained by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in relation with an ongoing investigation into the nation’s betting industry. On 2/18/2020, he has personally verified that he has never been detained by EFCC. According to news published on 2/18/2020, Mr Adebutu told PREMIUM TIMES in a letter that he was only interrogated but not detained as this medium reported. He said he had only gone to the EFCC to represent the managing director of Premier Lotto, who was unavailable at the time to answer EFCC summons. He also said the ongoing EFCC investigation was not about tax fraud and economic sabotage. “I was never invited to EFCC office by the EFCC operatives but voluntarily visited the office of the EFCC following a letter written to the managing director of Premier Lotto, a company in which the Adebutu family has business interest,” Mr Adebutu said in his letter. “The managing Director was not available at the period to honour the invitation.“Following my voluntary appearance at the EFCC office nonetheless, I was interviewed by the EFCC officials and was allowed to return home after the interview, contrary to your report. “I was therefore never detained as alleged in the said publication. The sources referred to in said publication obviously did not tell Premium Times the truth concerning my visit to the EFCC office. 3. References supporting change: https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/377868-why-i-was-quizzed-by-efcc-segun-adebutu.html 4. This section was just defaming the person and providing a false statement which has now been proved by the same new agency which published this news. So, kindly delete this section. Mudassariqbal59 ( talk) 17:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
he has personally verified that he has never been detained by EFCCThat's nice but we don't include personal stories that aren't published by reputable sources. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Spintendo Thanks for replying. I have got your idea about the changes. first of all, we would like to change the title of this section. Instead of "Controversy", the title at least should be "Allegations" due to the fact that the claims made in this section are denied by the Segun Adebutu and proved by same news agency which published an earlier version. Secondly, The information which should be altered is as follows: Information to be altered: In an Exclusive report, one of Nigeria's leading investigative Newspaper, Premium Times, reported that Segun Adebutu was detained and questioned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on January 28, 2020 at the anti-graft Lagos office for economic sabotage and tax fraud of about Five Billion Naira, associated with Premier Lotto, a company he is an Executive Director of. Other newspapers such as New Telegraph, TheCable and Pulse Nigeria also substantiated this report. Information to be added instead of above mentioned sentence: In an Exclusive report, one of Nigeria's leading investigative Newspaper, Premium Times, reported that Segun Adebutu was detained and questioned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on January 28, 2020 at the anti-graft Lagos office for economic sabotage and tax fraud of about Five Billion Naira, associated with Premier Lotto, a company he is an Executive Director of. Later, same news paper reported that he was not detained and voluntarily visited EFCC office. According to him, “I was never invited to EFCC office by the EFCC operatives but voluntarily visited the office of the EFCC following a letter written to the managing director of Premier Lotto, a company in which the Adebutu family has business interest,” Mr Adebutu said in his letter. “The managing Director was not available at the period to honour the invitation. “Following my voluntary appearance at the EFCC office nonetheless, I was interviewed by the EFCC officials and was allowed to return home after the interview, contrary to your report. Reference: https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/377868-why-i-was-quizzed-by-efcc-segun-adebutu.html I hope, we can resolve this issue asap as this specific section is based on just allegations. Mudassariqbal59 ( talk) 08:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)