Talk:John Davidson (activist)

A feature film about John's life is in production. It is called "I Swear" and it is being written and directed by Kirk Jones. Here is some more information about it: https://productionlist.com/production/i-swear/

Someone with better Wikipedia editing skills than me might like to add this to the main article. :-)

Thanks. Interesting news. We'll wait to see if it receives any media coverage before adding any info about it. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

hello Lopifalko due to media coverage at the weekend this profile is now being vandalized... [] ~2026-12010-69 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Id appreciate any help with adding the below content as new too all this. Thank you

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

On March 10, 1990, Davidson was charged with assaulting Owen Jardine (17), a resident of Roxburgh near Kelso, outside Digby’s nightclub in Galashiels. Jardine sustained a broken nose during the incident. Davidson appeared before the magistrate at Selkirk District Court on November 15, 1990. Magistrate Groves described the event as “very unfortunate.” He found Davidson not guilty and awarded compensation to Jardine for his injuries."Southern Reporter article". British Newspaper Archive. 1990-11-22. Retrieved 2025-11-07. Mr Veritiero (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BLP and WP:DUE; I can find no reliable source sufficient to add this kind of content to a BLP and Davidson was found not guilty. The "one drive" link provided returns nothing for me, and I find no other source, so the content is probably UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The article is from 1990 is now located in the British Newspaper archives. I can send a copy of the article to you directly if you can instruct me how. Whilst Me Davidson was found not guilty he was also found to have caused harm due to his Tourette’s, hence the compensation awarded. This is not recorded online which is exactly what I hope to correct with this update. Happy to provide whatever evidence will enable this if I can be guided as to how to share this.

Many thanks for your assistance. Mr Veritiero (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I've read the article, which is here, paywalled. When the OP originally brought this up, I was wary of adding it as potentially WP:UNDUE, and because of the not guilty verdict. Having now read it, I'm leaning towards adding it - not because of the court case itself, but because there is a lot of information in the article about Davidson's condition, how it affected his home life, treatment etc. The name of the person who was injured should not be added per WP:BLPNAME, and I can't see mention of compensation in the article. I'll leave this here for a bit and see what others' views are. Tacyarg (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I have requested files from the court case which I hope adds weight to the validity. This case is a key factor in Mr Davidsons life story so the intention is to ensure the true details are available on Wikipedia as well as those detailed in the movie. Again thank you all for your guidance as I’m new to Wikipedia and appreciate your expert advice. Mr Veritiero (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Files from a court case are primary sources; not useful on Wikipedia when secondary sources haven't covered them. Please review WP:NOT for an understanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Tacyarg please take care with WP:MEDRS relative to news sources reporting on medical conditions -- they don't often get it right. I continue to view this addition as UNDUE, considering the not guilty and the paucity of coverage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I would add that the details being added are high level, such as dates, location, names and outcome which are factual and not from any individual perspective. Mr Veritiero (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:DUE, WP:MEDRS. What is suggested above is not high level; it's very detailed for an encyclopedia. I haven't seen the source, so can't suggest, but encyclopedic would look more like:

• Davidson was charged in 1990 with assaulting an individual outside a nightclub. At court, the magistrate described the event as "very unfortunate" and found Davidson not guilty.

None of the excess detail is DUE, and I'm unsure even this much is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe it’s important to provide a balanced perspective, especially in light of the inaccuracies surrounding this event which are covered in the movie ‘I Swear’ which claims to be based on a true story. As soon as I receive the court files I’m more than happy to share if this will help

to remove concerns around accuracy and credibility for the additions I have proposed. Thanks Mr Veritiero (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

If there are inaccuracies in the movie, Wikipedia would need to have that from a secondary source stating same: see WP:SYNTH and WP:RGW. I know I'm throwing a lot of policy at you; I hope you're taking it on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

😁 It’s a steep learning curve for sure. I suppose all I hope to achieve is balance the books. People will take what they do from a movie and do their own research. As you rightly mention there is no online detail for this incident which is why I aim to add as much detail as possible. Mr Veritiero (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I notice the BBC didn't seem to think the incident worth mention, which reinforces my concern about UNDUE weight and RGW with respect to expanding the article based on primary sources (court documents). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The incident was 35 years ago. The media including the BBC did cover this (locally at least) but obviously the internet was nowhere near as accessible in 1990 as it is today. Mr Veritiero (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I see that Lopifalko agreed the content you want to add is UNDUE (it's also biased and unbalanced based on what little I can see of the source). If that is the content you plan to add, based on primary court documents, you haven't yet understood what Wikipedia is and is not.

See Societal and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome; volumes including scholarly articles have been written about Tourette's and in terms of history, pop culture, books, movies, and generally anything sensational, the territory is quite widely covered, and has been for decades. Sources don't seem to have found the incident worthy of coverage, which means the material is UNDUE.

See WP:BLUDGEON; unless someone else adds something new, we should move on now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

To ensure this content is neutral and unbiased do you want me to share the court files once I have these. I’d hope you agree this merits some level of detail. Mr Veritiero (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I openly acknowledge that I’m a novice when it comes to contributing to Wikipedia. However, my understanding is that this page concerns an individual who is both an activist and has Tourette’s syndrome. I believe that significant events in their life—especially those that occurred before the internet era and have not been widely documented—deserve to be included. After all, Wikipedia is meant to be a repository of verifiable facts. My goal is to contribute details about an important event that has, until now, remained largely unrecorded. Mr Veritiero (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

someone's gone and inserted the words Niger and Nigerian throughout. I've tried to reverse it but really can this post be locked please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-12010-69 (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC) sorry did not bother to log in under my user account []

A previous editor replaced the explicit spelling of the racial slur with the term "racial slur" in the BAFTA incident paragraph. I support that change as a good-faith neutrality edit.

While Wikipedia is not censored (WP:NOTCENSORED), MOS:BLP and MOS:SLUR encourage careful handling of slurs in biographies of living persons, particularly where paraphrasing accurately conveys the sourced information without repeating offensive language verbatim.

Yes it's known now which slur he used & that is being reported globally and that fact remains unchanged. The question here is whether spelling the term out adds encyclopaedic value versus paraphrasing it in neutral language.

I believe the paraphrased version maintains verifiability, avoids unnecessary repetition of offensive language, and better aligns with due weight and tone. Open to discussion. SBWalkerP (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The word is clearly offensive, but censoring the term also minimizes the harm that was done by this person's actions. It should remain.

Whitewashing the specific term used with the more generic "racial slur" phrasing is inappropriate, because that suggests it could have been ANY racial slur, however, the reality of the situation is that Davidson said "nigger" while two black men were on the stage. The context is important here. For example, it would have been significantly less offensive if Davidson had said something like "cracker" while two black men were on stage, but this is not what happened, obviously. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I will also add that if and when an apology is made by Davidson, then that should of course be integrated into the article to allow for some clarity and further context. But I don't see any reason to censor what was said at the award show, as it was utterly shocking regardless, and led to controversy. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest going with "n-word" - I don't think there'd be any misunderstanding there and wouldn't make the event seem any less shocking. Totorotroll (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

But that's not what he said. He didn't say "n-word" he said "nigger". Wikipedia is not censored. It's a fact, and as long as it is presented fairly and in a neutral way, it's not a BLP violation.

As an aside, it does sort of look like an "apology" was issued, although very broadly, and he made no mention of the two black men who were on the stage at the time, and did not address anything about racism or explicitly discuss further how it may have impacted specific individuals.

https://deadline.com/2026/02/john-davidson-issues-statement-bafta-racial-slur-i-swear-1236733373/

https://variety.com/2026/film/awards/i-swear-john-davidson-deeply-mortified-shouting-n-word-baftas-1236670082/

So something from these articles could be included, to give his position on the matter. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I have added an update to include his position. Feel free to correct/edit for any grammatical or wording fixes. SBWP 331 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that, looks good. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest we have a bit of a rethink about the whole thing. In this day and age, words like these are deeply offensive to many people because they are so loaded with historical baggage. Maybe I sound like an old stick in the mud, but I don't think it's okay for anybody to stumble upon racial slurs in wikipedia articles. A term like "n-word", linked to the relevant page for those curious souls who may not know what it signifies should work fine in my opinion. Totorotroll (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I would agree. SBWP 331 (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest we have a bit of a rethink about the whole thing. In this day and age, words like these are deeply offensive to many people because they are so loaded with historical baggage. Which is exactly why it should remain, to demonstrate the seriousness of it.

I totally do understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure that there is any precedent for this kind of removal. We need to stick to established policy and have a policy-based discussion, as this can't be based on vibes alone.

Wikipedia is not censored for a reason, and that document states: "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content."

I am not an expert, but I think the policy is pretty clear. If there is still significant disagreement, then someone should create an RfC. This would allow other editors to participate in the discussion. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

RfC Opened. SBWP 331 (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts

while I agree that leaving the word uncensored shows the severity of the word itself, I believe that as we are discussing how an involuntary use of this word caused so much harm to the black people who heard it both live and on television, isn’t having the word displayed in full here just as bad for any black people who see this entry?

I feel for this alone it should be censored let us not cause even more harm to the black community. ~2026-12396-14 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that having the word there is potentially offensive. Doesn't WP:Profane suggest we shouldn't have it there unless absolutely necessary?

Further given basically every source reports it as "the n-word" doesn't that mean we should be using that term instead? Allanu12 (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

As the video clip below shows, in addition to the n-word he also yelled "bitch" at actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo. Please update the page to say " . . . including shouting the [words] "nigger" [and "bitch"] at black actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo . . ."

See https://x.com/ANTHONYBLOGAN/status/2025756944611385570/video/1

We can't add content based on a video like this (I think that would fall under original research). It would require coverage in a reliable source. Either way, more things were said that night but I don't think it's important to document every single thing that was said. The "nigger" comment was by far the most covered and commented upon, while the other things have not been receiving as much coverage, making them much less WP:DUE for inclusion. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)