Talk:Tidjane Thiam

Nationality

He is a Franco-Ivoirian (French and Ivoirian), not just Ivoirian. He immigrated and spent most of his time in France. I think it should be indicated in the first line which seem to consider him as an Ivoirian only. Jheronimus (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done "Franco-Ivornian" is not used similarly the way "Franco-Italian" is not used. As it complies with WP:BLP his lead has been updated to read "French-Ivorian". LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please update the article to reflect the fact that he is a stateless person. According to Ivorian nationality law, he lost his Ivorian citizenship when he chose to become a French national in 1987. After voluntarily renouncing his French citizenship in 2025, he has now become a stateless person. All relevant sources are already in the article. --2001:1620:446F:0:20A2:1119:3EB2:6706 (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The claim that he “chose” to become French is disputed—he was born French through his father. The court ruling is being challenged, and authorities have since stated he regained Ivorian citizenship in 2025. Let’s stick to neutral, verifiable language. Pkouassi (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pkouassi said he was born French through his father but in my knowledge this is not accurate.

Accorded to sources , he get the French citizenship in 1987. Anatole-berthe (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe Thanks for your note. Under French nationality law (jus sanguinis), a child born to a French parent is automatically French at birth. Thiam’s father, Amadou Thiam, was a French citizen, so the 1987 date reflects an administrative formality—not the acquisition of nationality. This has been clarified by legal experts with the sources provided.

Per Wikipedia’s verifiability policy, personal knowledge isn’t sufficient—please provide a reliable source if you claim Thiam wasn’t born French. Also, a decision arising from a political conflict between Thiam and the Ivorian regime shouldn’t be treated as an independent source, even if issued by an official body. Let’s reflect both the court’s position and the legal debate in a neutral, well-sourced way. Pkouassi (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Answer to the question asked by @Pkouassi in the message published in "MAY/08/2025" at "03:44 UTC".

My personal knowledge is based on sources as said implictly in my message published in "MAY/07/2025" at "10:15 UTC".

Even if under "French nationality law" a child is French if one of his parents is French.

This is a primary source.

Secondary sources said he get French citizenship in 1987. It does certainly means French citizenship for him through his father wasn't acknowledged by French authorities and not only Ivoirian authorities. Secondary sources except one aren't clear but we can suppose it was a "naturalization".

Secondary sources that I found aren't clear except for one , so we can only say he get French citizenship in 1987.

We should no do an "original research" about his acquisition of French citizenship to include this in Wikipedia.

All sources below are in French. This list of sources isn't full.

Afrikipresse - - APRIL/23/2025 (Don't know if this media is reliable because I don't know it) : https://www.afrikipresse.fr/article/nationalite-francaise-a-l-etranger-cas-thiam-ou-declaration-de-naissance-au-bon-endroit (Mention explicitly a decree about his naturalisation)

BBC - Ousmane BADIANE - APRIL/22/2025 : https://www.bbc.com/afrique/articles/cx2y4d9nj37o

France 24 - Julia GUGGENHEIM - APRIL/22/2025 : https://www.france24.com/fr/afrique/20250422-c%C3%B4te-ivoire-opposant-tidjane-thiam-exclu-course-pr%C3%A9sidentielle-radi%C3%A9-liste-%C3%A9lectorale-politique-africaine

A primary source is clear. He was naturalised.

The decree was signed in "02/24/1987" and published on the first day of March 1987 in "Journal officiel de la République française". Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe

Thank you for your continued engagement on this important topic. However, I must respectfully express concern about the direction some recent edits and discussions have taken, which appear to align closely with narratives promoted by the Ivorian regime. This naturally raises questions about whether political motivations might be influencing the neutrality of this article.

“My personal knowledge is based on sources…”

→ Personal knowledge, even if informed by readings, is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Claims must be supported by explicitly cited, reliable sources in line with verifiability standards.

“Even if under French nationality law a child is French if one of his parents is French. This is a primary source.”

→ Respectfully, a Wikipedia article on French nationality law is not a primary source. By definition, a primary source would be the legal code itself or an official government document. Moreover, my earlier comment on this point was intended to clarify a legal principle for you as a peer, not to provide a direct source for the article. On the other hand, I notice that you are invoking a primary source (the Journal Officiel) while simultaneously arguing against original research.

It is contradictory to oppose original research while selectively interpreting primary sources to support a specific viewpoint—especially when dismissing other primary sources indicating birthright citizenship. Consistency in applying Wikipedia’s core policies is essential.

I’m also concerned that this article may be the target of coordinated efforts to discredit a political figure engaged in a human rights struggle. Wikipedia must remain vigilant against becoming a tool for authoritarian regimes to propagate their agendas.

I trust that you are engaging here in good faith, and I hope this context helps explain why this issue raises concern. I encourage you to read these articles, which shed light on how such coordinated strategies operate:

1. https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-state-sponsored-disinformation/

2. https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-fake-news-disinformation/

Regarding the sources you cited:

Afrikipresse: This paper widely regarded as aligned with the Ivorian regime, is a simple comment of a birth certificate. It implies Thiam's father was French but failed to record his birth at the French consulate. This statement is debatable: Thiam was recorded in the European register, and the register is available in Nantes, France. The source is not credible because it cherry pick information to share.

BBC and France 24: These reputable outlets report on the political controversy but do not offer definitive information about whether Thiam was born French or naturalized. Using them to assert a conclusive narrative about his nationality risks misrepresenting their content.

Legal experts, in fact, have clarified that the 1987 decree is simply an administrative regularization of status, not the initial acquisition of French nationality.

Finally, I strongly oppose incorporating content from the French version of this article.

By the way, why don't you incorporate the English version into French? That version has been widely disseminated on social media platforms in support of a political agenda. The English version currently presents a more balanced and neutral perspective, and we should work to preserve its integrity.

@Anatole-berthe, unless there is something personal at stake, I struggle to understand why this highly specific and contentious point of nationality is being prioritized above more substantial aspects of Thiam’s biography. There is so much more to highlight about his remarkable career and contributions as one of Africa’s most brilliant minds.

Let’s work together to prioritize accuracy, neutrality, and the broader picture over political agendas. Pkouassi (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Answer to the message by @Pkouassi in "MAY/09/2025" at "11:04 UTC".

"Thank you for your continued engagement on this important topic. However, I must respectfully express concern about the direction some recent edits and discussions have taken, which appear to align closely with narratives promoted by the Ivorian regime. This naturally raises questions about whether political motivations might be influencing the neutrality of this article."

Do you suspect a manipulation by the Ivorian regime ? I saw the edits made in the year 2025 for the article in English. For me , nothing is suspect and I consider that all editors acted in good faith.

If you're talking about the article in French. The right place is "fr:Discussion:Tidjane Thiam".

"“My personal knowledge is based on sources…”

→ Personal knowledge, even if informed by readings, is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Claims must be supported by explicitly cited, reliable sources in line with verifiability standards."

I agree with this statement. If I put sources in my previous message. It was for this reason.

"“Even if under French nationality law a child is French if one of his parents is French. This is a primary source.”

→ Respectfully, a Wikipedia article on French nationality law is not a primary source. By definition, a primary source would be the legal code itself or an official government document. Moreover, my earlier comment on this point was intended to clarify a legal principle for you as a peer, not to provide a direct source for the article. On the other hand, I notice that you are invoking a primary source (the Journal Officiel) while simultaneously arguing against original research."

I put a link to the article "French nationality law" that is a tertiary source.

I put this link only to illustrate the matter because the law itself is a primary source.

I mentionned the decree because the content of this primary source is supported by secondary sources.

If we use these secondary sources and this primary source.

We can constate that in the eyes of French administration , he was naturalised French.

If this was a decision that was illegal "de jure" because his father had French citizenship. This is not us to judge as we are Wikipedians and I don't know sources concerning specifically this aspect of the topic. I don't know sources considering that his naturalisation was "de jure" illegal.

If it was illegal "de jure" or not. Conformely to NPOV if we found sources on this matter.

We could say that there are people contesting the legality of his naturalisation because they consider he had it at birth.

If it was illegal "de jure" or not. We can constate "de facto" French administration and Ivorian administration consider that he hadn't French citizenship at birth.

"I’m also concerned that this article may be the target of coordinated efforts to discredit a political figure engaged in a human rights struggle. Wikipedia must remain vigilant against becoming a tool for authoritarian regimes to propagate their agendas."

It's right we should remain vigilant but accorded to what I saw concerning the article in English.

I saw the edits made in the year 2025 for the article in English. For me , nothing is suspect and I consider that all editors acted in good faith.

Thanks for the articles of "Wired". Majority of stories were already known by myself but they can be useful to those reading this talk-page.

"Afrikipresse: This paper widely regarded as aligned with the Ivorian regime, is a simple comment of a birth certificate. It implies Thiam's father was French but failed to record his birth at the French consulate. This statement is debatable: Thiam was recorded in the European register, and the register is available in Nantes, France. The source is not credible because it cherry pick information to share."

European register ? What's this ? The register is available in "Nantes".

Are you talking about Service central d'état civil ? If his father did registered his son. Which secondary sources confirm it ?

Also , Tidjane THIAM is born in 1962. He is less than 75 years old and therefore the full version of this birth certificate means than access is restricted. If he was more than 75 years it would be public for everybody.

Unhappily , even if we could legally access to the full version. It would be considered as original research without secondary sources.

Only the full version (Acte de naissance intégral / Full birth certificate) indicate the date of registration. Therefore , we need secondary sources based on a primary source but we couldn't verify.

Thanks for your opinion about the reliability of "Afrikipresse".

This publication is based in "Ivory Coast" but I can't found a source saying that this publication is widely regarded as aligned with the Ivorian regime.
,

"BBC and France 24: These reputable outlets report on the political controversy but do not offer definitive information about whether Thiam was born French or naturalized. Using them to assert a conclusive narrative about his nationality risks misrepresenting their content."

This source from BBC report the fact Ivorian justice consider he lose Ivorian citizenship in 1987 but didn't report the decision itself. A lawyer of Tidjane THIAM is quoted. The source is also mentionning the fact that this decision is controversial.

I consider it does report the situation "de facto" about how he get French citizenship because the lawyer is quoted and the lawyer is referring to the controversial decision.

About how he get it "de jure" is controversial and the source doesn't mention it.

The source said "Né à Abidjan, Tidjane Thiam a acquis la nationalité française en 1987, tout en conservant sa nationalité ivoirienne." (Born in Abidjan, Tidjane Thiam acquired French nationality in 1987, while retaining his Ivorian nationality.).

This source from "France 24" report the decision of the Ivorian justice indirectly because it is quoting a lawyer of Tidjane THIAM. The source is also reporting than Thiam is against this decision and that the decision is controversial.

The source is explaining that the lawyers of this person did produced documents in order to prove that he was French at birth but Ivorian justice didn't acknowledge it.

I consider this source did report the decision of Ivorian justice and the fact that this decision is controversial.

As I did already explained. French administration and Ivorian administration consider he get French citizenship in 1987. If these two administrations are wrong about the legality of his naturalisation.

As Wikipedians , our role isn't to juddge but to put sources that say the legality of his naturalisation is controversial.

We should say what is the situation "de facto" and explain which aspects are controversial for some people if we could find reliable sources. This is not our role to say what is right "de jure" and what is wrong.

"Legal experts, in fact, have clarified that the 1987 decree is simply an administrative regularization of status, not the initial acquisition of French nationality."

Which legal experts said that ? In the decree that naturalised him. We could find the mention "NAT" to the entry about him. NAT = Naturalisation

I'm curious to read what they think.

"Finally, I strongly oppose incorporating content from the French version of this article"

The version in French and the version English are nearly equal accorded to what I saw.

I thought version in French was more complete about this aspect but I was wrong.

"By the way, why don't you incorporate the English version into French? That version has been widely disseminated on social media platforms in support of a political agenda. The English version currently presents a more balanced and neutral perspective, and we should work to preserve its integrity"

I'm far to be a good translator even if I translate better French into English than the reverse.

The article in French show the legal reality. The decision of Ivorian justice could be a judicial mistake or not.

We as Wikipedians can't judge it but we can report source that contest it without support a party.

This decision is controversial. This is a fact.

In the case this decision is wrong because it was not correctly judged. This is not to us to judge it as Wikipedians and our personal opinion doesn't matter.

In the case this decision is right because it was judged correctly. This is not to us to judge it as Wikipedians and our personal opinion doesn't matter.

"[...], unless there is something personal at stake, I struggle to understand why this highly specific and contentious point of nationality is being prioritized above more substantial aspects of Thiam’s biography. There is so much more to highlight about his remarkable career and contributions as one of Africa’s most brilliant minds."

I don't know personnaly this person. I did never saw him in real life. I did never had any contact with him.

Before this decision of Ivorian justice concerning him. I did never read or heard anything about him.

I discovered his existence while reading online press.

How can I work on his career if I don't know sufficienly what he did ?

You said he's one of Africa's most brillant minds. I don't think he's the one of Africa's most brillant minds or that he aren't one. I'm neutral on this aspect as a Wikipedian and as a person.

The same about his contributions and career. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

As my previous message was long.

I prefer to continue with another message. I think we can improve this article with an inspiration (Maybe a translation) from the article in French "fr:Tidjane Thiam".

@Pkouassi and myself are among the contributors of the version in French.

If someone want to translate parts of this article from French into English.

Note forget "Wikipedia:Translation" and "Help:Translation#Licensing". Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe

Thank you for your respectful engagement.

For the sake of clarity, I’ll directly quote your own words and respond accordingly. There appear to be several contradictions in your reasoning that I’d like to address.

1. “I mentioned the decree because the content of this primary source is supported by secondary sources. If we use these secondary sources and this primary source. We can constate that in the eyes of French administration, he was naturalised French.”

If you can conduct this kind of effort to connect primary and secondary sources against the person concerned, I trust you will apply the same standard in his favor. For example, his lawyers have provided his birth certificate showing he was entered in the French national registry (Service central d'état civil in Nantes) where all French citizens born abroad are registered. Another available secondary source is his father’s nationality: born French and only naturalized Ivorian after Thiam’s birth, at the end of 1962. These facts are equally searchable and verifiable.

2. “If this was a decision that was illegal 'de jure' because his father had French citizenship, this is not for us to judge as Wikipedians and I don't know sources concerning specifically this aspect of the topic.”

I completely agree that this is not for us to judge. But by the same logic, we should avoid introducing information that creates a one-sided narrative based on what we know, while ignoring or suppressing facts we don’t wish to explore. If something is outside your knowledge, don’t assume conclusions—simply present the available perspectives.

3. “If it was illegal 'de jure' or not, conformely to NPOV if we found sources on this matter, we could say that there are people contesting the legality of his naturalisation because they consider he had it at birth.”

This is exactly what I have done by providing sources reflecting these contestations. What else are you looking to add and for what purpose?

4. “Are you talking about Service central d'état civil? If his father did register his son, which secondary sources confirm it?”

When you were born, what secondary source confirmed where you were registered ? I invite you to apply the same standard of evidence you apply to others. Birth certificates are primary documents, universally accepted. Why is a primary source acceptable when it discredits Thiam, but not when it supports his case? Think about your standards.

5. “Unhappily, even if we could legally access the full version, it would be considered as original research without secondary sources.”

And yet, you base your conclusions on the decree, a primary source, without hesitation. This is a clear case of selective application of editorial standards, which compromises neutrality.

6. “As I already explained, French and Ivorian administrations consider he got French citizenship in 1987.”

This is factually incorrect. Could you kindly provide a secondary source explicitly stating that the French administration considers his citizenship only dates from 1987? I have already provided secondary sources from French legal experts expressing the contrary.

7. “We should state the 'de facto' situation and explain which aspects are controversial, if we find reliable sources. This is not our role to say what is right 'de jure' and what is wrong.”

Exactly—this is all I ask: a balanced and transparent presentation of the facts, reflecting both the official decision and the ongoing controversy. Instead, I see significant resistance, and repeated legal justifications to uphold a singular version of the facts.

8. “Which legal experts said that? In the decree that naturalized him, we could find the mention 'NAT' to the entry about him. NAT = Naturalisation.”

Are you now offering your own legal interpretation of official decrees? So, are primary sources acceptable now? Or is this primary source simply acceptable because it damages the identity of Thiam, and therefore undermines his ability to run against a dictator who might be paying to control online information?

Let’s conclude

It’s surprising to witness this double standard: a call for neutrality, yet a refusal to apply it equally. My point here is not to advocate for a particular narrative—only to ensure that readers are informed of both the decision and the contestations it raises, as required by our commitment to balanced and neutral information.

The readers deserve the facts and the intellectual space to form their own critical judgments. Anything less, or any selective presentation of facts, amounts to manipulation of information.

Thank you again for your engagement and for contributing to a more balanced and informative article.

Pkouassi Pkouassi (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

"“I mentioned the decree because the content of this primary source is supported by secondary sources. If we use these secondary sources and this primary source. We can constate that in the eyes of French administration, he was naturalised French.” After that I quoted the author who quoted me. Below is the answer of the author.

If you can conduct this kind of effort to connect primary and secondary sources against the person concerned, I trust you will apply the same standard in his favor. For example, his lawyers have provided his birth certificate showing that he was entered in the French national registry (Service central d'état civil in Nantes) where all French citizens born abroad are registered. Another available secondary source is his father’s nationality: born French and only naturalized Ivorian after Thiam’s birth, at the end of 1962. These facts are equally searchable and verifiable."''

What I do isn't against him or in his favor. I'm not a hater or a supporter of this person.

1.If his lawyers have provided his birth certificate showing he was entered in the French national registry.

2.If the father of this person is born French and was naturalised Ivorian after the birth of Tidjane THIAM.

These elements are interessant but we have to be carefull about "Wikipedia:Synth".

Therefore the secondary sources containing these elements should be about the controversial decision.

Read "Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not" can help us.

You seem to know better than me topics related to "French speaking Africa" (I don't like this term but it is a common term and therefore I use it. One of the reasons is because there are others languages than French spoken in this area). Therefore , if you say that I can found sources. I think you're right.

If I had these now , I could be faster and therefore if you show me sources. It would facilitate the work.

"“If this was a decision that was illegal 'de jure' because his father had French citizenship, this is not for us to judge as Wikipedians and I don't know sources concerning specifically this aspect of the topic.” After that I quoted the author who quoted me. Below is the answer of the author.

I completely agree that this is not for us to judge. But by the same logic, we should avoid introducing information that creates a one-sided narrative based on what we know, while ignoring or suppressing facts we don’t wish to explore. If something is outside your knowledge, don’t assume conclusions—simply present the available perspectives."

A distinction have to be made between "judicial reality" and "interpretation of law".

The judicial reality is the next : He haven't Ivorian citizenship between 1987-2025 and he had French citizenship between 1987-2025.

Whatever if the Ivorian law was misinterpreted. Ivorian justice consider he wasn't Ivorian between 1987-2025 because he was French at this time. For Ivorian justice he wasn't born French and the French administration think the same.

I didn't found sources saying explicitly that French administration think the same. Therefore , if I put that in the article it would be "original research". Maybe I read one of these and that I don't remember.

We can't deny that this decision is controversial. Therefore , we can say that they are groups of people contesting how the law was interpreted by Ivorian justice.

"“If it was illegal 'de jure' or not, conformely to NPOV if we found sources on this matter, we could say that there are people contesting the legality of his naturalisation because they consider he had it at birth.” After that I quoted the author who quoted me. Below is the answer of the author.

This is exactly what I have done by providing sources reflecting these contestations. What else are you looking to add and for what purpose?"

Are there on the talk-page on the article about him on "Wikipedia in English" ?

Our talking is far to be short. So , I can't remember of all.

"“Are you talking about Service central d'état civil? If his father did register his son, which secondary sources confirm it?” After that I quoted the author who quoted me. Below is the answer of the author.

When you were born, what secondary source confirmed where you were registered ? I invite you to apply the same standard of evidence you apply to others. Birth certificates are primary documents, universally accepted. Why is a primary source acceptable when it discredits Thiam, but not when it supports his case? Think about your standards."

Which secondary sources did confirmed where I was registered ?

I'm not "notable". Therefore , I'm not concerned.

Birth certificates aren't documents universally accepted everywhere. I think for examples to these cases when "French authorities" did contested the content of foreign birth certificates

We can't use directly a primary source for which we have no access.

This is why a secondary source is necessary.

Also , interpret directly the content of a primary source can be considered as an original research even if it is not necessary to have a secondary source to understand its content.

An article unlike a talk-page is needing a secondary source in the majority of cases.

Read "Wikipedia:Primary source". For the question "Where was registered Tidjane THIAM when he was born ?". This policy can be interpreted in different ways. Therefore , use a secondary source seem to me the most secure way.

As a person and as a Wikipedian (This is only an opinion of myself). I think "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines" can be uneasy to understand. I can be often in situations where I don't know what is the most correct interpretation.

Wikipedia is not a "court of law" and therefore "policy and guidelines" doesn't make all but these are a part of the project.

"“Unhappily, even if we could legally access the full version, it would be considered as original research without secondary sources.” After that I quoted the author who quoted me. Below is the answer of the author.

And yet, you base your conclusions on the decree, a primary source, without hesitation. This is a clear case of selective application of editorial standards, which compromises neutrality."

We're on the talk-page and not the article itself.

Accorded to secondary sources and this primary source. He was naturalised in 1987.

For me , it's obvious he was "de facto" naturalised French based on secondary sources and this primary source. The legality of this act is a thing for which I don't support a side or another.

If we have secondary sources that consider that this act was illegal "de jure".

I think this aspect could be put in the article in a way to reflect the debate on this matter.

A debate does exist on this matter. This is factual. So , I think this subject can be included in the article.

"“As I already explained, French and Ivorian administrations consider he got French citizenship in 1987.” After that I quoted the author who quoted me. Below is the answer of the author.

This is factually incorrect. Could you kindly provide a secondary source explicitly stating that the French administration considers his citizenship only dates from 1987? I have already provided secondary sources from French legal experts expressing the contrary."

I don't remember that I saw secondary sources from French legal experts expressing the contrary on this talk-page about the article in English.

We're also present on the talk-page about the article in French "fr:Discussion:Tidjane Thiam".

I don't find sources on any talk-page.

"“We should state the 'de facto' situation and explain which aspects are controversial, if we find reliable sources. This is not our role to say what is right 'de jure' and what is wrong.” After that I quoted the author who quoted me. Below is the answer of the author.

Exactly—this is all I ask: a balanced and transparent presentation of the facts, reflecting both the official decision and the ongoing controversy. Instead, I see significant resistance, and repeated legal justifications to uphold a singular version of the facts."

Is this resistance to mention the necessity of secondary sources ? This article should be improved to include the two sides.

"“Which legal experts said that? In the decree that naturalized him, we could find the mention 'NAT' to the entry about him. NAT = Naturalisation.” This is not our role to say what is right 'de jure' and what is wrong.” After that I quoted the author who quoted me. Below is the answer of the author.

Are you now offering your own legal interpretation of official decrees? So, are primary sources acceptable now? Or is this primary source simply acceptable because it damages the identity of Thiam, and therefore undermines his ability to run against a dictator who might be paying to control online information?"

My own interpretation of an official decree haven't its place on the article.

We're on the talk-page. I was just asking which legal experts said he did not acquired French citizenship in 1987 because it does seem strange to me that legal experts said that.

I did wrote "Which legal experts said that ? In the decree that naturalised him. We could find the mention "NAT" to the entry about him.

NAT = Naturalisation

I'm curious to read what they think."

Without sources , we can't say legal experts said that.

I'm not in favor of "Tidjane THIAM" or against him.

I don't know personnaly this person. I did never saw him in real life. I did never had any contact with him.

Before this decision of Ivorian justice concerning him. I did never read or heard anything about him.

I discovered his existence while reading online press.

Write words like those below is a thing to avoid because it can be considered by some editors like a violation of "Wikipedia:No personal attacks".

There are others contributors who aren't like me and could start a conflict for this kind of sentences.

Avoid this kind of sentences with others users because it can lead to unuseful conflicts. Unhappily , there are too many conflicts on Wikipedia.

"[...] Or is this primary source simply acceptable because it damages the identity of Thiam, and therefore undermines his ability to run against a dictator who might be paying to control online information?"

"Let’s conclude

It’s surprising to witness this double standard: a call for neutrality, yet a refusal to apply it equally. My point here is not to advocate for a particular narrative—only to ensure that readers are informed of both the decision and the contestations it raises, as required by our commitment to balanced and neutral information.

The readers deserve the facts and the intellectual space to form their own critical judgments. Anything less, or any selective presentation of facts, amounts to manipulation of information.

Thank you again for your engagement and for contributing to a more balanced and informative article."

We haven't the same vision about things like sourcing but we agree on the main thing.

Put in the article the next facts.

1.There are a debate about how he get French citizenship. Naturalisation or per birth through his father.

As I did explained , for Ivorian authorities and French authorities. He was French between 1987-2025 but some contest considering that both authorities are wrong on this subject.

2.The decision of Ivorian justice that say that he wasn't Ivorian between 1987-2025 is controversial. Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe

It is quite impressive to witness such an extraordinary commitment to neutrality—one that consistently and coincidentally upholds the official narrative of the Ivorian government at every turn. An impartial stance, no doubt, but one that seems remarkably focused in only one direction.

I note that primary sources are perfectly valid when they support the idea of a naturalization in 1987, yet mysteriously require additional layers of verification when they might challenge that narrative. Neutrality, it seems, is a very precise science—one applied with surgical precision depending on which side of the argument benefits.

While we’re debating the subtleties of WP:SYNTH, the reader remains with an incomplete picture. Are we here to defend a singular version of the facts, or to uphold Wikipedia’s mission of presenting balanced, nuanced information?

Let’s return to simplicity:

I believe it would be in the interest of balance to refrain from directly importing the current French page into English. The English version remains, for now, more balanced.

Surely this would not endanger the stability of the encyclopedia—or is the truth really that dangerous?

Regards, Pkouassi (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

In the case of the primary source that is the decree.

This is supported by secondary sources as I did already explained in my previous messages.

I can quote myself if you ask considering it does seem you didn't understood my sayings.

I think that there are a misunderstanding.

You already said that they are legal experts who said the decree doesn't means he did acquired French nationality in 1987. Where are the sources in this Talk-Page ? These sources would be good to state the existence of the debate.

The two versions about how he get French citizenship have to be put in the article.

There are a debate about the legality of the decision that naturalised him French because there are people who claim that he was French at birth.

I don't understand why do you think that I favorise the narrative of Ivorian regime.

Secondary sources are needed even for a simple fact like the "birthdate" of someone.

Read "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons".

An extract from this policy : "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

Therefore , for the debate about the legality of this decision that naturalised him French.

We need secondary sources in the same way that there are sources that say he was naturalised French.

This debate is a reality and therefore the article can mention this without support a side or another.

"I believe it would be in the interest of balance to refrain from directly importing the current French page into English. The English version remains, for now, more balanced."

I consider that the content in French and in English are nearly equal.

"Surely this would not endanger the stability of the encyclopedia—or is the truth really that dangerous?"

Which truth ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Credit Suisse - Resignation

Based on the reference in footnote 32, the following sentence is incorrect: Thiam is believed to have direct knowledge or involvement in the surveillance.[32]

Correct text: Thiam is believed not to have direct knowledge or involvement in the surveillance.[32]

Quester questor (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Propose deletion.

I propose to delete the following as: A. It relates to the bank not the individual. B. The share price bounced back later in the year.

Shares in Credit Suisse more than halved from a late February high through a mid-March low as banks slumped on worries about the impact of sweeping lockdowns across most of Europe put in place to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus (on February 8, 2020, UBS was at 70% of its March 2015 stock price, Credit Suisse 55%).[35][36]

Sadgrove (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)