Talk:Caesar DePaço

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caesar DePaço article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 28 days

Some content must not be added to this article as it was removed as an office action following a court order. The content was removed on 5 August 2025 and must not be restored. It pertains to the following: crimes allegedly committed by DePaço in 1989 and associated proceedings; an organization DePaço allegedly founded; his alleged dismissal from a civil service post. Therefore, this article does not meet the Neutral point of view policy. The community message was agreed upon during this article's deletion discussion. Additional details are available in the Wikimedia Foundation's announcement and in this article's deletion discussion. More information can be found in the court order and its English translation.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 August 2025. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

showThis article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

show This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

@Anomie I have to say that the wording you introduced in the banner here [1] doesn't make sense to me. DePaço allegedly committed facts of a criminal nature? How does that work? The previous wording was much more understandable and pretty much a copypaste of what was said at [2]. The change doesn't clarify anything. Ping to @Barkeep49 if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I directly copied the wording from WMF Legal (in Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#c-Jrogers_(WMF)-20250806204200-Voorts-20250806003700) in that item, other than changing "Mr. DePaço" to just "DePaço" since we generally leave off honorifics. The critical difference is that the prohibition isn't a blanket "accusations of past crimes", it's specific to crimes allegedly committed in 1989 and their subsequent procedural progress. Feel free to copyedit if you want, I agree the wording is awkward but I didn't want to get into trying to copyedit Legal myself. Anomie⚔ 19:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's not awkward, it's gobbledygook. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to have any opinion you want. But just throwing out your critical opinion, without making any suggestions for improvement and ignoring the explanation of what the critical difference is between the old and new text, seems unlikely to improve the situation in any way. Anomie⚔ 19:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While that was offered by a lawyer, I think it's more confusing than the previous wording (which was based on a previous statement). So what it gains in specificity for not being as blanket, I think it loses through confusion. But ultimately I'm not too passionate either way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One does not commit a fact (except to memory). Should it read acts of a criminal nature? Also, what is their subsequent procedural progress? Neither facts nor acts make progress in any meaningful way. As we're discussing alleged crimes, perhaps it means investigation and/or prosecution. If that's inaccurate, or accurate but censored, then we should probably say something vague like "subsequent events". Certes (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"acts" being typoed as "facts" makes a lot of sense to me. Since everyone else here seems to just want to complain on the talk page instead of fixing anything, I went ahead and changed that. If someone wants to try to make better sense of what WMF Legal said and/or what's apparently the original "factos de índole criminal alegadamente praticados pelo requerente, ocorridos em 1989, e sua tramitação processual subsequente", feel free. Anomie⚔ 02:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a native speaker, but I wonder if “facts of a nature allegedly criminal practiced by the applicant” (keeping much of the word order) could be interpreted as “facts about the applicants practices of an allegedly criminal nature”.

I.e. factos de ((índole criminal alegadamente praticados) pelo requerente) rather than ((factos de índole criminal) alegadamente praticados) pelo requerente). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add: it’s moot point anyway, I think Legal’s change to the banner (effectively: some content removed, see (links) for details) is an improvement. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, it seems likely that "facts of a criminal nature" was probably an accurate but overly literal translation rather than an idiomatic translation. Personally I thought it was in a good state before Legal's change, and if they were to change their mind about the risk I think reverting to that version would be better than "see the talk page". Anomie⚔ 21:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, As noted in this diff, we were advised by our Portuguese counsel that because the court order applies specifically to the article page, we shouldn't say what was removed on the article page itself as that risks violating the order. We've done an office change to redirect to the material at the talk page, as the court order only creates an obligation for the Foundation to keep the material off the article page itself. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jrogers (WMF), thanks for the update. Would including a link to another version of the article (e.g. the Spanish Wikipedia version at es:César do Paço) in the article page template risk violating the court order? — Newslinger talk 18:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe including a link to another version is fine, similar to us linking to the talk page. The way the court order issued, it is about the content displayed on the English and Portuguese article pages. So the banner linking elsewhere (the Portuguese version links to the court judgment itself I believe) is okay. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the quick response!​ — Newslinger talk 21:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, it was pretty funny. I think one editor wondered if it was close to malicious compliance. The banner here on the talkpage will have to do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrogers (WMF): Is it fine if we have it in the editnotice (a banner that shows up when you click edit)? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is said to probably be fine, we might want to avoid it anyways. That way, we don't risk having another addition to the lawsuits. The edit notice could instead link to the talk page so that only those trying to edit the page would need to determine if their edits would risk violating the court order, while keeping it off the article. (Yes, an edit notice isn't actually on the article, but my intent here is to avoid the court somehow thinking it is.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should do the best we can to serve our readers. I think we should absolutely be pointing them to articles with good information, especially in this case where Portugese speakers are likely to have some understanding of Spanish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we might want to avoid it anyways. Careful of complying in advance. In my opinion, we don't need to do any scrubbing beyond what WMF Legal requests. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 & Novem Linguae: Very well. I will concede on this and await a response from Jrogers regarding the editnotice. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I emailed legal about this; they said they are reviewing it. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 09:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still present in other articles in the various Wikipedia languages. Spanish, French etc. It's easy enough to find, even though it was removed here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The judicial order covered only this page and the one at ptwiki. Anomie⚔ 13:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The link in the {{Legal order}} template to "the Wikimedia Foundation's announcement" needs to be updated to Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 11#Follow up on some questions from Foundation Legal. I have made the same edit to the {{Talk legal order}} template at the top of this talk page. 199.66.14.55 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nubzor [T][C] 17:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]