Talk:Simon Ekpa

WP:LEADIMAGE

Image under discussion

File:Official Portrait of Simon Ekpa (2023).jpg

A counterproposal by Moxy

@Canterbury Tail, @Nathannah, other interested.

IMO, we should keep this leadimage, it's better than none, and since we have it we might as well use it. And looking at other pics of him, I think it's recognizable. There seems to be an amount of AI/whatever, but that seems to be expected these days. The leadimage at Donald Trump doesn't look all natural either, I think Weekend Update described it as "...and the gates of hell opened." The Ekpa-pic was previously discussed at Commons here, and WP has seen worse.

Fwiw, it's a "The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page." pic, so he's not being AI-pranked by someone else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Otherstuff/whataboutTrump aside (and nobody is interested in the license), if I read you correctly, the main point is this image is better than no image. I respectfully disagree. Nathannah's edit summary suits me fine. JFHJr (㊟) 06:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Good enough, and "better than no image" is my argument, yes. "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page."

  Consensus will be what it will be, there's an element of personal taste here (that essay is an essay). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I suspect that you, my friend, enjoy a high tolerance for the uncanny valley. And yes, this will be a consensus on taste apparently. JFHJr (㊟) 06:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  When I watched Exodus: Gods and Kings I was greatly annoyed that Moses got a steel sword and that the Sphinx looked like it does today. How a politician wants to look in a picture apparently bugs me less. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  The consensus appears to be that the movie sucked. Necessarily, a variety of gripes, including those both like and unlike yours led to that kind of consensus. Similarly, editors booing the original image may have a variety of aesthetic motivations. My own situation is the uncanny valley, and gazing at the old image induces a palpable sensation of distrust and even some distress. The uncanny valley article's graph illustration of somewhere around zombie and moving prosthetic hand is where I think I and others are. And if you're spectral like me, you might actually physically feel the discomfort. JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• That's not even a real face! That's just a bunch of parts messing with my mind! Seriously I have to agree no image is better than...whatever this is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Close enough to the original, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• A slightly eerie manipulated photo is definitely better than nothing at all, if it's all we've got. The caption could give the reader some appropriate context ("2023 publicity image") to let them join the dots, if they might wonder why it looks the way it does. Belbury (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  The caption at the time of removal was "Upscaled image of Ekpa in 2023". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  MOS:AIUPSCALE actually does advise that (If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption.), but I don't know how much that should apply to publicity shots where the original was presumably never published. (Wikipedia wouldn't, I assume, be expected to note in the caption when a publicity photo had been airbrushed or otherwise retouched.) Belbury (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ironically, it appears one of the fundamental AI prompts was to shut the subject's mouth. Upscaling. JFHJr (㊟) 23:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• If the image were to be used, it could be captioned: Image used by Ekpa as his avatar on Twitter or something like that. Some1 (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  He used it on professional sites too, iirc. CMD (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  That would still be just a disclaimer and justification to let casual readers know why we've chosen a strange-looking image to illustrate the BLP. A decent article shouldn't need disclaimers or justifications. And a better (IMO) image has been offered. What do y'all think of it? JFHJr (㊟) 23:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't consider the use of an AI-generated (or AI-manipulated) image in a biography of a living person at all appropriate. The fact that the individual 'approves' it really isn't that relevant. Readers shouldn't have to read captions to figure out why an image looks so strange. Which this one definitely does: uncanny valley indeed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Absolutely agreed. it is not better than no image - it's far worse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• we could upload this one.... I think it's normal somewhat? Moxy🍁 19:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Everything uploaded from flickr to Commons on this guy has so far been deleted as flickrwashing, it has a long history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  I guess we can try. Moxy🍁 20:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  This literally hurts my brain less to look at. In fact, it's a very good image, and I've less qualms about the datedness of this one than the content of the AI image. Thank you, Moxy. JFHJr (㊟) 21:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  This one...it actually looks like the subject and less like someone having a laugh in the MLB The Show player generator. I have no issues with this one at all. Nathannah • 📮 23:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  I nominated it for deletion, I'm suspicious. @Yann, do you feel like having an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Deleted. Obvious Flickr license washing. Yann (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Seems like a version of from 2017. It's not impossible that the flickruploader is the copyrightholder, but it's not my default assumption per Ekpa-Commons history like Talk:Simon_Ekpa/Archive_1#Note_to_people_trying_to_add_an_image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  If this same flicker account has been recognized in the past as having copyright problems we should blacklist it so the flicker bot doesn't automatically approve it.... this would save a lot of time for good faith editors. Moxy🍁 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think it was several accounts, but don't take my word for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  If all the actual photos are flickrwashed, is there a reason to assume the base image before whatever was done to end up with what we have is free? The copyright would not be invalidated by modifications. CMD (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  There's a ticket at with the answer to your question. I can't see the content but am confident it's satisfactory. They really don't tolerate fake claims or copyvios. JFHJr (㊟) 02:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  I can't see that ticket either, but I don't see why or how they would know what the base image is. If their job is just to verify that the image uploader is the same as the image user, that process would not check this. CMD (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  Again, don't take my word for it, but iirc, the File:Simon Ekpa portrait, 2023.jpg appeared on Commons before elsewhere online. Some Ekpa-Commons history:

  • User_talk:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång/Archive_8#Adding_image_to_Article_Simon_Ekpa
  • User_talk:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång/Archive_8#Official_notification
  • User_talk:1st_Contributor#Your_account_has_been_blocked
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1138#Deceptive_contact_by_political_operators Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  I believe you about the edited image, I am openly wondering about the pre-edited image. CMD (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  My hypothesis is that we haven't seen that one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  If by "base image" you mean , obviously that 2017 pic has a copyright holder somewhere. It could be Ekpa, the party he was running for or a photographer, professional or otherwise. It doesn't seem to me that File:Simon Ekpa portrait, 2023.jpg is a modification on that one, though the lapel pins are similar. I think one of them might be The Gideons International. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

After all the above, would anyone suspect this image doesn't belong best at Wikipedia:Unusual biographical images as a truly modern exemplar of AI rejection? JFHJr (㊟) 06:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Nnamdi Kanu image

The image of Nnamdi Kanu in this article does not appear to be of any particular helpful illustration of the subject, Simon Ekpa. This image is WP:UNDUE since it does not illustrate the subject in any way, but scant mention of a third party. We don't have Ngozi's face on this Ekpa article for good reason. The same applies here. It should go. What say you, all? JFHJr (㊟) 18:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @AndyTheGrump and @Reading Beans. I'm removing it for now because I think we are 3 experienced editors with the same notion. Proponents for replacement can discuss here. JFHJr (㊟) 19:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Chronology

In an encyclopedia biography, you don't normally see chronology all over the place like it appears here. Any help streamlining by date and sectioning by topic will be helpful. I'll try to work on it as my time allows, but I hope another editor or two or three might get a head start. If something can't be put into chronological order because it fits best to something out of order, consider how to caption a new section or subsection. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It' a bit sprawling, but roughly chronological... is the intent anyway. I've been thinking of making subsections to "Activism and separatism" of some sort, perhaps before and after 2023, sit-at-homes, reactions from Nigerian and Finnish authorities or something like that. Perhaps it's also possible to improve the sourcing by using in-depth sources with some perspective more and get rid of some "this just happened/Ekpa just said this on Twitter" sources. Btw, it would be interesting to see the motivation for his ambassador of peace award. Fwiw, here's some ABOUTSELF on that award: Apparently, you get a newsletter. Here's a comment on it: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Potentially useful sources at . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

On recent news, I think this source has it right: FACT CHECK: No, Finnish court didn’t approve Simon Ekpa’s extradition to Nigeria Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Charges are out

https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000011263712.html Seems I was correct about the not being a layer thing. Hehe. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

"Ekpaa syytetään terroristisessa tarkoituksessa tehdystä julkisesta kehottamisesta rikokseen ja terroristiryhmän toimintaan osallistumisesta. Näiden lisäksi häntä syytetään törkeästä veropetoksesta ja asianajajista annetun lain säännösten rikkomisesta."

The charges:

-Public incitement with terroristic intent

-Participation in an terroristic organization

-Egregious tax-fraud

-Breaking the rules under the 'Law for the Lawyers' law Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kennet.mattfolk I added something: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

He actually denies all charges, the tax fraud admission is a sort of a different charge in the finnish legal mindset, a 'mild' tax fraud. To some it may seem like the same thing or a gradient. But they have different legal implications, in practice his defense is trying to change the charge or 'nimike'. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You're the one not using Google translate. Please improve. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

A Swedish source I'm not going to use says "Ekpa erkänner ett ringa skattebrott, men förnekar grovt brott." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, though your swedish source makes it sound more uncertain than it is. He's now being charged for certain, with exact charges. The finnish source above states he's denying all charges, but admitting to minor tax fraud. Essentially a new charge he's entered against himself.

Here's one list for common charges in both swedish and finnish, I'm not a legal expert, but I think Ekpa may be going for an 'Skatteförseelse'. These are different, involves different consequences if sentenced and so on. To a layman it may be all the same though.

https://otos.stat.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/01685a4b-50a2-433e-962b-78ecbe8a973a/content

So I would say in the something like 'Ekpa denies all charges by the prosecutors, but admits to minor tax fraud' or how to best explain it. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. Also, more sources are likely to appear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, the verdict was read out today . Samoasambia ✎ 16:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, added. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"Lainvoimainen"

Quote from source: "Tuomio ei ole lainvoimainen. Siitä on mahdollista valittaa hovioikeuteen." https://yle.fi/a/74-20180360 key word here is: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lainvoimainen

Commonly translated into english as legally valid or legally binding. His sentence ia thus just a paper saying he's been an naughty boy until October 1th. If he did do as his legal team sid they would do, to appeal the conviction, then the sentence will remain legally not valid for the duration of said appeals OR if he doesn't appeal it automatically becomes valid on any expirary date. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Ekpa certainly got a valid sentence; the district court is quite real. In our English based (Common Law) parlance, it's analogous to a stay, but let's all note he remains detained and post-sentence bail is unavailable. Instead of describing the sentence as "invalid" or even a "stay", I've changed the wikivoice to "not [...] enforced". We don't need to lawyer this, just make it clear to a casual reader. JFHJr (㊟) 00:15, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Throw the relevant word into any machine translator or look it up. This is how it is usually translated. Its also how finns understand it, the sentence is not valid, its just an 'paper', until the set conditions to make it valid from Law apply. Its simply how the system works in which Ekpa finds himself in. Since he appealed the sentence, its literally not 'lainvoimainen' literally translated doesn't 'have the power of the law' and the relevant criminal law (rikoslaki) paragraphs will not be 'sovellettu' or applied.

Also there isn't any concept of 'bail' in the finnish legal system. Your interperting it as if it was an anglosphere system, which can be quite different. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kennet.mattfolk My machine translator makes "Tuomio ei ole lainvoimainen. Siitä on mahdollista valittaa hovioikeuteen." into "The judgment is not final. It can be appealed to the Court of Appeal."

Context is often relevant concerning meaning of words. If Google got this one right I can't say, but it sounds plausible to me, I expect a case like this to have started in a lower court that can be appealed to a higher one. Not final/not legally binding can be seen as different words for the same thing, since you can see something that can be appealed as not (definitively) binding. But if it's not "legally binding" in the sense of "doesn't matter to anyone", he wouldn't be in prison , would he? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes as mentioned 'final' is the other dictionary version alonside legally valid acc. to the WSOY link posted. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

The current article writing "Ekpa's sentence was not enforced"/"remained detained" doesn't quite make sense to me, but IANAL, and it might make legal sense, though I wonder what he's detained for if his sentence isn't enforced. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

He is in remand prison (tutkintavankeus; description in English). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Just looked it up in the dictionary, WSOY Suomi-Englanti-Suomi Sanakirja 2005 edition. "Legally valid" is the official translation of Lainvoimainen. So do as you wish with it, interpert it as you wish. Source uses legally valid. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/suomienglantisuo0000hurm/page/7/mode/1up?q=lainvoimainen Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

A statement that the verdict is 'not legally valid' makes no sense whatsoever in this context. It was a verdict reached by a valid court, Under valid law. If there was no appeal, it would be validly enforced. Attempting to suggest otherwise through literal translation of a single word is clearly misleading for the reader, who would probably assume that an appeal court cannot enforce an invalid verdict. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

'Makes sense' is relative. The justice system in question literally considers it not legally valid. Just bc this differs elsewhere doesn't unmake the law of the land. See Judicial system of Finland the court of appeals rulings may be legally valid even with right to appeal, the other dictionary translation is "final". That's what this site uses https://www.oikeus.fi/en/themes/appealing-a-ruling-by-a-court/ . Hence the rules differ at different courts, but the term refers to legal deferment of any sentences. Thus court of appeal decisions may be legally valid despite Ekpa still having possibility of appeal. The validity of law or courts are immaterial, their simply legal no need to be valid and Ekpa's verdict isn't 'legal' yet. The missleading here is assuming the system works like another court system elsewhere. The court of appeals literally can uphold the district courts decision and thus making it legally valid, change it or nullify it. Its very specific term. Willynilly interperting this concept can be equally, if not more missleading.

Source thus literally says its not legally valid. Again feel free to go interpert it however you wish. It might sound like a foreign concept. I don't think its missleading. Next time try to copy editing it to your liking rather then claiming falsely its something its not. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

It is almost always a mistake to assume that regardless of context, a single word in one language will always translate to only one single word in another language. Which is why translators take care to look at the context. And in the context of this article, it is clear from the sources that Ekpa's sentence has been deferred, as he is appealing. This is more or less in accord with what the Oikeus.fin article you link above says: In most cases, a party must first apply to the court of appeal for leave for continued consideration. If such leave is not granted, the district court’s ruling remains final. Describing the district court's verdict as 'not valid' is simply misleading to an English reader, regardless of the finer points of Finnish law (which don't, in this regard appear to differ much from British or US common law). A lower court reaches a verdict, subject to appeal. Appealing the verdict doesn't invalidate it at that point: that is for the higher court to decide: after hearing the case. This really isn't complicated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Instead of "invalid", a reader of plain English expects words like "suspended" or "deferred" or "stayed" or "presumptive" to describe the sentence status. "Invalid" in plain English makes it sound like he's walking out of jail with all his money, which he's not. JFHJr (㊟) 04:04, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I categorically avoid doing storytelling, indirect translations and biased interperting. I let others do that. I already corrected one very minor part in the new text that had become out of source due to creative copy editing. I find the only ethical and respectful way towards an source is to limit interperting as much as possible and do as direct translation as possible. Sure the word flow may not be as posh, but at least the information is less interperted and more accurate.

The best translation is imo either not legally valid or not legally binding. Those best preserve the connotations ei lainvoimainen.

Hope you guys stick to source in what ever you settle on. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see what is 'ethical' about a 'direct translation' that misleads readers into thinking that a court has handed down an invalid prison sentence. And I'd have to ask what exactly qualifies you ("not a subject matter expert deep into legal jargon" ) to determine whether the translation is 'exact', or even whether an exact translation is even possible. I've known a few translators and interpreters in my time, and they have made it clear enough that much of the job involves getting meanings across, not substituting single words in one language for single words in another. Language doesn't work like that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't claim to be an expert, but I do think to direct allows for less interperting and thus less persobal bias thatbwe all have to creep in. And just dismissing someones wprk as just false bc they have a different view on translating and conveying source information is offensive. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no 'personal bias' involved in attempting to avoid misleading readers through an obsession with attempting to translate a single word literally in a context where the actual meaning is made clearer by using other terminology. Feel free to start an RfC if you like (read Wikipedia:Requests for comment carefully first, taking note of the need for a brief, neutral statement), but otherwise, I suggest you drop it. And I'd strongly advise you against making further ridiculous accusations of 'personal bias' before I decide to take action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, you accused me, so I guess I can underline having made an accusation of personal bias towards you. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Given your evident poor grasp of the English language (and resultant inability to see the difficulty with your 'literal translation'), I might let that slip, but don't push your luck. So how about sticking to the subject: are you going to start an RfC, or accept that you are in the minority here? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Reply to: "Given your evident poor grasp of the..."

I'll do what I wish myself when I find the need to do said it. I've gotten my point across now. I highlighted my difference to you, in hopes you'd get we're different, I'm not trting to be ypu or edit like you. You missunderatood that and took it as an insult. I felt very insulted for your false accusations and actions based on them earlier, so you taking me highlighting my difference to you as an insult towards you created an level equilibrium. Equilibrium is fine for me. So keep at insulting all you want, if English was an native language it might even hurt, its not. Go do RfC if you feel like it, I see no need for it atm, I'm happy with this. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)