Talk:Brooke Norton-Cuffy

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Football: England / Arsenal Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Arsenal task force (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Crescentsista (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

Concerns Regarding Heritage Information and Terminology

Concerns Regarding Heritage Information and Terminology I would like to raise concerns about inaccuracies in the article regarding Brooke's heritage. The current content includes both incorrect and potentially misleading information. To clarify: Brooke is of Guyanese and Dominican heritage, through his maternal and paternal grandparents. The article should be updated to reflect this in order to maintain biographical accuracy. Additionally, the current use of "Dominica" in the text is incorrect in this context. While Dominica is a country, the correct demonym (nationality) is "Dominican". This distinction is important for clarity and accuracy. I have attempted to make these corrections several times, providing clear and constructive explanations in the edit summaries. However, my edits have been reverted, and I’ve since been accused of vandalism despite engaging in good faith. I’m raising this here to invite discussion and consensus so the article can be improved in line with Wikipedia’s standards on verifiability and neutral point of view. Thank you. Crescentsista (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crescentsista You've found the talkpage, that's good per WP:COMMUNICATE and hopefully @GiantSnowman and other editors will be willing to discuss your concerns. I made a comment below based on your WP:BLPN post. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality/decent or whatever

I came here from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Request_for_Removal_of_Incorrect_Heritage_Information_from_Brooke_Norton-Cuffy’s_Wikipedia_Entry.

I made this edit [1] since ref given, some stats-page that may very well be generally reliable, said Dominican nationality. These 2 stat-pages [2][3] says nothing of the sort, and my quick googling didn't find any comment on his dominican-ness.

So, it seems to me this fails at least WP:PROPORTION per the sources I've seen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most relevant source I've found, translated: "Brooke Dion Nelson Norton-Cuffy was born in the English capital on January 12, 2004 to a family originally from Dominica", but without knowing Italian I cannot tell if this is a reliable source. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do have a redazione, but I don't find it very assuring. Leaning not good enough per PROPORTION/BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also wouldn't mind seeing more sources making the same claim before adding it to the article. @GiantSnowman what are your thoughts? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of sources out there - of mixed reliability - saying he is of Dominican descent. An editor claiming to be his mohther has confirmed it. The source that says 'dual nationality' is, as I explained at BLPN, simply how (for whatever reason) they display descent. Removing the content was an error. Giant Snowman 08:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Even if "that's how that webpage displays descent" is correct (far from obvious to this reader), them displaying it is not enough reason for WP to include it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that multiple sources deem it fit to include, so should we. Giant Snowman 08:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a couple of BLP-good ones? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like the one already used, and seem to ignore the one above - but the rest are databases of questionable reliability, as I have already said. Giant Snowman 08:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I commented on it, I didn't ignore it, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have ignored it as a source. It verifies content which you have removed. It does not support your position. Giant Snowman 08:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources most relevant seem to be sport.de which says nationality but not descent, and calciogenoa.it which appears to say that the subject's family is "originally from Dominica" which may or may not indicate Dominican descent, its possibly their family immigrated to Dominica, maybe the claim is more definite in its native Italian. Are there other sources that I've missed?

"An editor claiming to be his mohther has confirmed it." – I mean this kindly, but as editors we shouldn't give this any weight at all. There is no evidence that the editor in question actually is their mother, and it wouldn't matter if they were in this instance per WP:OR. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm prepared to agf that Crescentsista is indeed the subject's mother, it doesn't matter much regarding article content. She is welcome to suggest sources and discuss content on talkpages etc. I also think that the WP:BLPKIND policy deserves some attention when responding to her. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another stat-page that says he has "Dominica citizenship", perhaps that's also how they display descent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'd like to address the ongoing assumption that Brooke’s Dominican nationality is verified simply because multiple websites display the Dominican flag next to his name.

The reality is that many of these websites pull information from the same original (and often incorrect) source. It only takes one site to publish inaccurate data — in this case, the Dominican flag — and others quickly replicate it without independent verification. This kind of information recycling is common, especially on sports databases and news aggregators.

Just because this detail appears across multiple sites does not mean it’s reliable. In fact, it highlights the risk of circular sourcing, which Wikipedia policy (WP:CIRCULAR) cautions against.

As Brooke’s mother, I can confirm that he does not hold Dominican nationality, or have any personal allegiance to Dominica; a country that he's never even visited. The inclusion of that flag is factually incorrect, and I’ve already contacted the originating site to request a correction.

For the sake of accuracy — and in line with Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy — I believe this misinformation should not be repeated or relied upon, regardless of how many sites currently display it. Crescentsista (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Crescentsista, this is the second time I'm asking that you please not use a large language model to generate posts or replies. Such replies may be hidden as allowed by WP:AITALK. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m new to Wikipedia and still getting to grips with the language and terminology used here. When you mention using a "large language model," I’m not entirely sure what that means — it honestly sounds like double Dutch to me! 😊

Are you suggesting that my comments are too long or too detailed? I’m happy to adapt, just let me know what you mean. Crescentsista (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The colloquial term is "AI", applications like ChatGPT or Gemini. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you’re suggesting that I’m generating text using AI?

I’m a degree-educated professional, trained as a journalist in my early twenties, with experience in marketing and over 15 years of teaching English. Therefore, I’m more than capable of expressing myself clearly and in detail without the help of AI. I find your assertion insulting to say the least! Crescentsista (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are using an LLM, I have absolute confidence in that assessment. Please stop. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I refute your assertion and find your response insulting to say the least. Your assumption or suspicion of an offence is not proof of any infraction having being committed by myself. Or is that you doubt my ability as Brooke's mum to be able to express myself clearly and articulately. Crescentsista (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi with respect, I've just googled Wikepedia rules because I'm still navigating my way round on here. It would seem that even if I were using AI (which I'm not) there are no rules that exclude me from doing so, as long as the information is accurate and reliable and doesn't include any discrepancies. Please explain where the offence is here. Crescentsista (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were provided a link to WP:AITALK, which is a behavioral guideline, above. You can also read WP:LLMTALK for further explanation about why using a model to generate text for discussion is disruptive. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further interest in continuing to engage on this article because my initial objective has been met. That said, I'm extremely disappointed in that you've made an unfair assumption for which you've not yet apologied but instead chose to double down on. Crescentsista (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that she is using a language model? LordDiscord (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would point you to their post on the BLPN noticeboard here as a near-perfect example of what LLM output looks like in Wikipedia discussions. There are multiple technical tells which are present, but really this is a duck style of situation. Even the indignation on display is highly typical of model output. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with 15224 - the use of language is very odd/unnatural. Giant Snowman 13:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put it through a couple AI detectors, and they both said more likely generated by human. Maybe it is, but it seems absurd and not civil to accuse someone of this just because you think it looks like it. LordDiscord (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to hear when I can outperform a tool, but if you trust tools more than people then per gptzero.me:

This diff received a score of 93% mixed, this diff 83% mixed, this diff 81% AI. I do not care to check more.

"I have absolute confidence". fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the one you said was a perfect example, not some extremely short posts that are difficult for AI detectors to give a reliable result on. GPT Zero says 81% probability human on your perfect example one. LordDiscord (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Always glad to hear when I can outperform a tool" fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will then ask that you please stop. See: WP:ASPERSIONS LordDiscord (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please both stop - you are distracting from the issue at hand. Giant Snowman 14:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support.

I would like to explain, that I initially came to Wikepedia because my sister was alarmed at the fact that Brooke's profile stated that he was of Dominican descent; immediately notifying me of this.

So, without having read the rules for editing on Wikepedia, I mistakenly attempted to make the relevant changes to his profile myself.

However, once I was made aware of my conflict of interest, I've since attempted to have this corrected through engaging in discourse with other editors on Wikepedia.

Unfortunately, instead of constructive dialogue, I've found that some of the other editors have behaved in a way which I can only describe as dismissive and at times what I believe to be borderline bullying.

To make matters worse, I now feel as though I'm being accused (indirectly)of not having the intellect to be able to articulate myself in an intelligent, coherent manner. Hence, this AI troupe! Unbelievable! Crescentsista (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, what precisely is "alarming" about being of Dominican descent? Giant Snowman 14:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I believe that I'd already answered that question during our earlier communications.

So for the sake of clarity, here we go again: Brooke is of both Guyanese and Dominican descent. Therefore, referencing one without mentioning the other is not only factually incorrect but effectively erases one side of his family history. Crescentsista (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not factually incorrect. Having incomplete information about somebody does not make a biography wrong or worthless. In fact, 100% of biographies will be incomplete by their very nature! Giant Snowman 15:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source, see WP:TRANSFERMARKT. Giant Snowman 10:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this edit after reading through this discussion. LordDiscord (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm not using AI!

Instead I have been trying to keep to a tone which I thought would be appropriate for this forum because, I was trying to drive home a specific point. Also, after my initial comments, I have since been trying to remain respectful and measured without appearing over emotional on a subject which is clearly dear to me. Crescentsista (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen that. You have been very respectful. Deepest apologies for the treatment towards you here, it is definitely not in line with Wiki policies and is rather shameful in my opinion. LordDiscord (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Crescentsista (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]