Talk:Jeremy Dewitte

Notability?
IT SHOULD BE BOLDLY NOTATED ON THIS PAGE THAT JEREMY DEWITTE HAS ABSOLUTELY "ZERO" MILITARY HISTORY, EXPERIENCE, OR SERVICE RECORD! In no way whatsoever did he ever serve in any branch of military! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:54F0:8450:42EA:2B7C:7C46:5373 (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

As someone addicted to watching this guy self-destruct, I have to say I am not sure that Dewitte is notable enough for his own article. A.S. Williams (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The amount of media coverage over the years, for various different events, seems to make him pass WP:GNG clearly, in my opinion (and as editor who started the article) . CT55555 (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The extensive media attention spanning several years across multiple events appears to satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:GNG for his notability. Additionally, his appearance on a nationally televised talk show further attests to his significance as deemed by the press. JagerVick (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with WP:GNG. It wasn't just one incident for which he received a lot of press. It also wound him up on a national talk show so the press thought he was obviously worthy of notice. My only concern is the TikTok crowd editing the page with no sense of our guidelines but I think enough people are watching the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with this exactly. I have just requested more protection for the page. CT55555 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cheers. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Make Edit Peace, not Edit War
The exchanges between @CNMall41 and @Noloader need to cool down a few degrees.

I'm not going to take sides on the content issue - adding information that's verifiable and not controversial should be OK even if it comes from quality primary sources, and we also need to respect the fact this is a BLP article and the highest standards of sourcing need to apply.

Since @CNMall41 has restored the status quo ante it seems the next step has to be discussion on this talk page to try to reach consensus. I think that's consistent with WP:ONUS. Sniping at other editors in the edit summaries is not going to end in consensus. Nor will posting warnings on the other person's talk page, even if those warnings are well-intentioned and justifiable. What will help is explaining here, for each disputed fact, why you think its inclusion does or doesn't meet policy. Oblivy (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. You are correct however, I think you need to direct this towards the other editor. Unfortunately, we are beyond discussion as Wikipedia is not a WP:PACT. This is a BLP violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY and user is also actively engaged in another edit war. And still engaging despite two warnings (myself and another editor). Given the personal attacks in the edit summaries I am preparing a report for WP:ANEW now.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For WP:ANEW you are expected to show an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page. I've tried to encourage that. I was disappointed to see the latest revert, but I suggest you wait a beat and see what @Noloader's next step is. Oblivy (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a cool head and for the practical advice. After taking a closer look, I still filed the report. It is more than a content dispute. It is a BLP vioalation, sepcificaly WP:BLPPRIMARY as user is using a public document (DOC record) where BLPPRIMARY says "do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Subject is also engaged in an edit war on Null pointer where they have not engaged in a talk page discussion (and in fact reverted twice after another user posted a discussion on the talk page). They were told several times to utilize the talk page here and would be the one required to start a discussion per WP:ONUS. I could be wrong, but while it is encouraged to use the talk page per ANEW, I do not see why we would allow edit warring to continue with a BLP violation given the facts stated. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User blocked by now an IP is attempting to add same BLP violations and unsourced content. Requested semi-protection. The talk page is here for anyone wishing to discuss as opposed to WP:BLUDGEON.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Would more info be acceptable?
For example, a list of his convictions? I find the article a little confusing because it seems to go back and forth between arrests and convictions. I think that focussing on convictions would be the most responsible way to handle the BLP. Dogweather (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's appropriate to mention his arrests (where reliable sources do also), WP:BLPCRIME guides us is to make sure we don't imply guilt where none has been found. editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured But I would support any edits that brings greater clarity.
 * So focus on convictions? Yes. If this means not write about arrests, I would not support that. CT55555 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)