User:Bawolff/Edit COI Summary/10 per page (alphabetical)/17

Cannot transclude talk pages due to post expand include size limit. Please visit individual talk pages to see the discussion.

• Equal Credit Opportunity Act
• Equitel
• Equity Bank Kenya Limited
• Equity Group
• Esther Eidinow
• Etzanoa
• Explora Journeys
• Faculty (company)
• Faherty Brand
• Fanfix

---

← Previous page Next page→

Equal Credit Opportunity Act

Request edit: April 2026 CFPB final rule amending Regulation

I have a COI declared on my user page (employed by NCRC). I am requesting an uninvolved editor review and, if appropriate, implement the following addition. I am not 100% sure of the right process so I am trying to do this the right way.

The article currently describes the regulatory regime as it stood before April 2026. On April 22, 2026, the CFPB published a final rule making three significant changes to Regulation B: removing the "effects test" and stating that ECOA does not authorize disparate-impact liability, narrowing the discouragement prohibition, and imposing new restrictions on special purpose credit programs (SPCPs) by for-profit creditors. The rule takes effect July 21, 2026 (90 days after Federal Register publication). This is a substantial change to ECOA's regulatory implementation and the article should reflect it.

I propose adding the following as a new subsection under "Amendments and regulatory development," following the existing "Section 1071 small business lending data" subsection. I have not edited the article directly given my COI; I drafted this in my sandbox at User:GeographerJay/sandbox.

Proposed text

2026 final rule amending Regulation B

On April 22, 2026, the CFPB published a final rule amending Subpart A of Regulation B. The rule, which takes effect July 21, 2026, makes three significant changes to the regulatory implementation of ECOA.

First, the rule removes the "effects test" from Regulation B and states that ECOA does not authorize disparate-impact liability. The CFPB's position is that ECOA's prohibition on discrimination "on the basis of" protected characteristics is intent-focused and does not contain the effects-oriented language present in statutes such as the Fair Housing Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, where the Supreme Court has recognized disparate-impact liability. The rule preserves disparate-treatment liability, including claims based on facially neutral criteria used as proxies for protected characteristics. The change reverses a longstanding interpretation that dated to the Federal Reserve Board's 1977 amendment of Regulation B.

Second, the rule narrows the prohibition on discouraging prospective applicants under § 1002.4(b). The discouragement analysis is now limited to oral or written statements (including images) that a reasonable person would understand as expressing an intent to discriminate, rather than statements or practices that merely create negative impressions or have indirect discouraging effects. Targeted outreach to specific demographic groups is expressly not treated as discouragement of those outside the targeted group.

Third, the rule restricts special purpose credit programs operated by for-profit creditors. For-profit SPCPs may no longer use race, color, national origin, or sex as eligibility criteria. For-profit SPCPs using other permissible characteristics (religion, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance income, or exercise of Consumer Credit Protection Act rights) face heightened documentation requirements, including a written plan demonstrating need and participant-level evidence that each participant would not receive credit absent the program. Nonprofit and government-authorized SPCPs are largely unaffected.

The CFPB received approximately 64,500 comments on the proposed rule and finalized it largely as proposed. Consumer advocacy groups, state attorneys general, and members of Congress signaled during the comment period that the rule would be challenged in court on Administrative Procedure Act and statutory-interpretation grounds. The rule's effect on disparate-impact liability is limited to ECOA enforcement; the Fair Housing Act, state anti-discrimination statutes, and private ECOA litigation in courts that have not foreclosed disparate-impact theories remain available avenues for effects-based claims.

Notes for reviewer

• I have not included quotes or paraphrases from advocacy organizations (including my employer) in the proposed text. The "consumer advocacy groups, state attorneys general, and members of Congress" reference is sourced to factual reporting on the comment period.
• If a reviewer would prefer this be added as a new top-level section rather than a subsection, I'm happy to restructure.
• The existing "CFPB v. Townstone Financial" section may also warrant a brief note that the Seventh Circuit's discouragement holding interprets the pre-2026 version of Regulation B; I have not proposed that edit here but flag it for reviewer consideration.

~~~~ GeographerJay (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Doing... This all seems fine to me, however, I'm not sure that merely being employed by an organization that has an opinion on a specific piece of legislation constitutes a COI. I'm going to inquire elsewhere. If it does, I'll come back and implement this. RedBaron214 (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Based on AndyTheGrump's advice here, I've gone ahead and implemented this edit request, the sources seeming to check out and the content otherwise satisfactory. RedBaron214 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Equitel

Edit request – FY2025 operational updates

Disclosure: I am a paid editor. I work for Bean Interactive, a digital marketing agency engaged by Equity Group Holdings to propose factual updates to this article. Full disclosure is posted on my user page per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

---

Overview section – new paragraph

Proposed addition (after the existing Overview paragraphs):

As of FY2025, Finserve operates as part of Equity Group's broader

technology and digital financial services ecosystem. The Group reported that 98.2% of all transactions are conducted outside the branch, with 88.4% conducted through digital channels.As of FY2025, Finserve operates as part of Equity Group's broader

---

History section – subscriber update

Current text:

On 12 August 2021, Equity announced the roll out of its LTE or

fourth-generation (4G) broadband network service for Equitel SIM cards becoming the fifth telco in Kenya to offer 4G services.As of FY2025, Finserve operates as part of Equity Group's broader

Proposed text (add after the existing 4G paragraph):

On 12 August 2021, Equity announced the roll out of its LTE or

fourth-generation (4G) broadband network service for Equitel SIM cards becoming the fifth telco in Kenya to offer 4G services. According to the Communications Authority of Kenya's Second Quarter Sector Statistics Report for FY2025/26 (October–December 2025), Equitel had approximately 1.5 million active SIMs as of December 2025. During the same quarter, Finserve recorded total domestic voice traffic of 13.26 million minutes and total SMS traffic of 2.19 million messages, with an average on-net call duration of 1.4 minutes.As of FY2025, Finserve operates as part of Equity Group's broader

---

Equity Group Holdings section

Current text:

Equity Group Holdings is a largest financial services group in East

Africa. As of June 2021, the group had an asset base valued at over US$10.2 billion (KES1.119 trillion), with a total customer base in excess of 14 million, in the region the group serves.As of FY2025, Finserve operates as part of Equity Group's broader

Proposed text:

Equity Group Holdings Plc is the largest financial services group

in East and Central Africa. As of December 2025, the group had total assets valued at KSh 1.97 trillion (approximately US$15.2 billion), with a total customer base of over 22.4 million across seven countries in Africa.As of FY2025, Finserve operates as part of Equity Group's broader

---

Equity Group Holdings section – subsidiaries list

Current list includes "Equity Banque Commerciale du Congo" and "Equity Investment Services Limited".

Proposed updated list:

* Equity Bank Kenya Limited – Nairobi, Kenya

* Equity Bank Rwanda Limited – Kigali, Rwanda

* Equity Bank South Sudan Limited – Juba, South Sudan

* Equity Bank Tanzania Limited – Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

* Equity Bank Uganda Limited – Kampala, Uganda

* Equity BCDC – Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo

* Equity Consulting Group Limited – Nairobi, Kenya

* Equity Insurance Agency Limited – Nairobi, Kenya

* Equity Nominees Limited – Nairobi, Kenya

* Equity Investment Bank Limited – Nairobi, Kenya

* Finserve Africa Limited – Nairobi, Kenya

* Equity Life Assurance (Kenya) Limited – Nairobi, Kenya

* Equity General Insurance (Kenya) Limited – Nairobi, Kenya

* Equity Health Insurance (Kenya) Limited – Nairobi, Kenya

* Azenia – Nairobi, Kenya

* Equity Group Foundation – Nairobi, Kenya

MtKenyaReader (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to follow up politely on our edit request submitted on 30 April 2026 covering FY2025 digital transaction stats, Equitel subscriber figures (1.5 million active SIMs as verified by the Communications Authority of Kenya) and updated Equity Group Holdings section. Please let us know if you need any further information or clarification. Thank you for your patience. ~~~~ MtKenyaReader (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

MtKenyaReader (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Equity Bank Kenya Limited

Edit request – FY2025 financial and operational updates

Disclosure: I am a paid editor. I work for Bean Interactive, a digital marketing agency engaged by Equity Group Holdings to propose factual updates to this article. Full disclosure is posted on my user page per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

All proposed changes are sourced from independent third-party publications as cited below.

---

Opening paragraph

Current text:

Equity Bank Kenya Limited is a Kenyan bank and financial services

provider headquartered in Nairobi providing retail banking and commercial banking services.

Proposed text:

Equity Bank Kenya Limited is a Kenyan bank and financial services

provider headquartered in Nairobi providing retail banking, commercial banking and digital financial services. As of the financial year ending December 2025, Equity Bank Kenya Limited reported total assets of KSh 1.04 trillion, a loan book of KSh 409.4 billion, and customer deposits of KSh 849.2 billion.

---

Ownership section

Current text:

The Equity Bank Kenya Limited is wholly owned by the Equity Group

Holdings, which has a customer base in excess of 14 million in six East African countries...

Proposed text:

The Equity Bank Kenya Limited is wholly owned by Equity Group

Holdings, which has a customer base in excess of 22.4 million across seven countries in Africa...

---

Branch network section

Current text:

Equity Bank maintains a network of 190 branches across Kenya,

which includes 52 branches in Nairobi.

Proposed text:

As of December 2025, Equity Bank Kenya maintains a network of 221

branches across Kenya, supported by 328 ATMs and 42,634 agency banking outlets. The bank serves 14.1 million customer accounts in Kenya and holds a 13.6% market share of total banking assets, making it the second largest bank in the country. As of December 2025, 98.2% of all transactions are conducted outside the branch, with 88.4% conducted through digital channels.

---

History section – Brand Finance addition

Proposed addition (after the 2019 awards paragraph):

In March 2026, Brand Finance named Equity Bank Africa's strongest

banking brand, awarding it a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score of 93.9 out of 100 and an AAA+ rating, ranking it among the Top 10 strongest banking brands globally. Brand Finance simultaneously named Equity Kenya's most valuable brand with a brand valuation of USD 554 million (KES 71.6 billion), ahead of Safaricom, KCB Group, M-Pesa and Co-operative Bank.

---

Governance section

Current text:

The eight-member board of directors is chaired by Vijay Gidoomal.

Moses Nyabanda, serves as the managing director of the bank.

Proposed text:

The nine-member board of directors is chaired by Vijay Gidoomal.

Moses Nyabanda serves as the Managing Director of the bank. The board comprises the following members:

# Vijay Gidoomal – Non-Executive Chairman

# Moses Nyabanda – Managing Director

# Adema Sangale – Non-Executive Director

# Prof. Gideon Maina – Non-Executive Director

# Fredrick Muchoki, OGW – Non-Executive Director

# Samuel Onyango – Non-Executive Director

# Dr. Julius Muia – Non-Executive Director

# John Wilson – Non-Executive Director

# Dr. Ruth Kagia – Non-Executive Director

# Lydia Ndirangu – Company Secretary

MtKenyaReader (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC) MtKenyaReader (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to follow up politely on our edit request submitted on 23 April 2026 covering FY2025 financials, branch network figures,

Brand Finance ranking and Board of Directors update. All proposed changes are supported by independent third-party sources including

The Trading Room, The Cooperator, The Kenya Times, The Star and Capital FM Business. Please let us know if you need any further

information or clarification. Thank you for your patience. ~~~~ MtKenyaReader (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request – Q1 2026 financial updates

Disclosure: I am a paid editor. I work for Bean Interactive, a digital marketing agency engaged by Equity Group Holdings to propose factual updates to this article. Full disclosure is posted on my user page per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

This is a supplementary request covering Q1 2026 figures, separate from our pending FY2025 request.

---

Opening paragraph

Current text:

Equity Bank Kenya Limited is a Kenyan bank and financial

services provider headquartered in Nairobi providing retail banking and commercial banking services.Equity Bank Kenya Limited is a Kenyan bank and financial

Proposed text:

Equity Bank Kenya Limited is a Kenyan bank and financial

services provider headquartered in Nairobi providing retail banking, commercial banking and digital financial services. As of Q1 2026, Equity Bank Kenya delivered a 21% year-on-year increase in Profit After Tax to KSh10.3 billion.Equity Bank Kenya Limited is a Kenyan bank and financial

---

Ownership section

Current text:

The Equity Bank Kenya Limited is wholly owned by the Equity

Group Holdings, which has a customer base in excess of 14 million in six East African countries.Equity Bank Kenya Limited is a Kenyan bank and financial

Proposed text:

The Equity Bank Kenya Limited is wholly owned by Equity Group

Holdings, which has a customer base in excess of 22.7 million across seven countries in Africa.Equity Bank Kenya Limited is a Kenyan bank and financial

---

Branch network section

Current text:

Equity Bank maintains a network of 190 branches across Kenya,

which includes 52 branches in Nairobi.Equity Bank Kenya Limited is a Kenyan bank and financial

Proposed text:

As of December 2025, Equity Bank Kenya maintains a network of

221 branches across Kenya, supported by 328 ATMs and 42,634 agency banking outlets. The bank serves 14.3 million customer accounts in Kenya and holds a 12.8% market share of total banking assets. As of Q1 2026, 98.3% of all transactions are conducted outside the branch, with 89.5% conducted through digital channels.Equity Bank Kenya Limited is a Kenyan bank and financial

MtKenyaReader (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

MtKenyaReader (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Equity Group

Edit request – FY2025 financial and leadership updates

Disclosure: I am a paid editor. I work for Bean Interactive, a digital marketing agency engaged by Equity Group Holdings to propose factual updates to this article. Full disclosure is posted on my user page per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

All proposed changes below are sourced from the Equity Group Holdings FY2025 Investor Booklet (March 2026) and the Equity Group Holdings leadership page, unless otherwise noted.

Extended content

---

Overview section

Current text:

As of August 2021, it had assets exceeding KSh 1.119 Trillion (US$10.1 billion). The group also had over 14 million customers in six African Great Lakes countries, with KSh790.6 billion (US$7.61 billion) in deposits.

Proposed text:

As of December 2025, it had assets exceeding KSh1.97 trillion (US$15.2 billion). The group also has over 22.4 million customers in seven African Great Lakes countries, with KSh1.45 trillion (US$11.2 billion) in deposits.

---

Current text:

As of the financial year ending 2020, EGHL reported an asset base worth Ksh1.015 trillion ($9.244 billion). The total group of customers was 14.3 million, with Ksh740.8 billion ($6.74 billion) in deposits.

Proposed text:

As of the financial year ending December 2025, EGHL reported an asset base worth Ksh1.97 trillion (US$15.2 billion). The total group of customers was 22.4 million, with Ksh1.45 trillion (US$11.2 billion) in deposits.

---

Current text:

In 2019, over 97% of EGHL transactions were done outside branches; with 79% via money and 11% via agency. In July 2020, the Euromoney Awards for Excellence voted EGHL as the Best Bank in Africa and for the second time in a row, the Best Digital Bank in Africa.

Proposed text:

In 2025, over 98% of EGHL transactions were done outside branches; with 88.4% via digital channels and 6.1% via agency.

---

Current text:

In 2021, 98% of the Groups transactions by count were done via its digital platforms which represented 65% of total value of transactions conducted by the group's customers. As of June 2021, EGHL total assets were valued at KSh1.12 trillion (US$10.12 billion), with shareholders' funds valued at US$1,096,000,000 (KSh121,279,000,000). At that time the bank group had over 15 million customers...

Proposed text:

In 2025, 88.4% of the Group's transactions by count were done via its digital platforms, which represented over 57% of the total value of transactions conducted by the group's customers. As of December 2025, EGHL total assets were valued at KSh1.97 trillion (US$15.2 billion), with shareholders' funds valued at KSh1.80 trillion (US$13.9 billion).

---

History section

Current text:

In August 2021, data from EGHL reported that in six months ending June, Equity BCDC made a Ksh700 million ($6.37 million) profit before taxation making it the most profitable subsidiary of the group.

Proposed text:

In November 2023, data from EGHL reported that in nine months ending September, Equity BCDC made a Ksh11.4 billion ($74 million) profit before taxation making it the most profitable subsidiary of the group.

---

Ownership section

Current text:

As of December 2016, shareholding in the group's stock was as depicted in the table below:

As of 31 December 2020, shareholding in the group's stock was as depicted in the table below;

Proposed text (replace both lines with one):

As of March 2023, shareholding in the group's stock was as depicted in the table below;

Also update the table: Change Arise BV shareholding from 11.99% to 12.76%.

---

Board of Directors section

Current text:

The following are the board members of Equity Group Holdings Limited, as of July 2021.

# Isaac Macharia, Chairman

# James Mwangi, CBS, Group Managing Director & CEO

# Mary Wamae - Executive Director

# Dr. Edward Odundo - Non-executive Director

# Evelyn Rutagwenda - Non-executive Director

# Vijay Gidoomal - Non-executive Director

# Dr. Helen Gichohi - Non-executive Director

# Jonas Mushosho - Non-executive Director

# Lydia Ndirangu - Group company Secretary

Proposed text:

The following are the board members of Equity Group Holdings Limited, as of December 2025.

# Prof. Isaac Macharia, Non-Executive Chairman

# Dr. James Mwangi, CBS, Group Managing Director & CEO

# Dr. Nick O'Donohoe - Non-Executive Director

# Dr. Evans Baiya - Non-Executive Director

# Mr. Biraro Obadiah – Non-Executive Director

# Jonas Mushosho - Non-Executive Director

# Samuel Mwale - Non-Executive Director

# Ms. Farida Khambata - Non-Executive Director

# Dr. Lakshmi Shyam-Sunder – Non-Executive Director

# Dr. Lydia Ndirangu – Group Company Secretary & Head of Tax

References

MtKenyaReader (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Question: Wondering if you have any other sources besides these? Ideally we'd have reliable secondary sources Likeanechointheforest (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this request. Yes, we can provide additional

secondary sources. Here are independent third-party sources that

corroborate the proposed figures:

For financial figures (assets, deposits, customers, shareholders' funds):

• The Trading Room (independent Kenyan financial news outlet), March 2026:

"Equity Group Holdings Achieves Historic Performance in FY 2025"

This article independently confirms total assets of KES 1.97 trillion,

customer deposits of KES 1.46 trillion, and shareholders' funds of

KES 309.5 billion as at FY2025.

For shareholding / ownership table:

• MarketScreener (international financial data platform):

Equity Group Holdings – Shareholders

This independently lists current major shareholders including Arise BV

at 12.76%.

For Board of Directors:

• Equity Group Holdings official leadership page:

equitygroupholdings.com/about-equity

For BCDC profit (History section):

• Standard Media (already cited as source 5 in the request):

Standard Media

We are happy to provide any additional sources if needed. MtKenyaReader (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Likeanechointheforest, I just wanted to follow up politely on our response from 11 April 2026, where we provided additional independent sources including The Trading Room, MarketScreener and Standard Media to support the proposed changes. Please let us know if you need any further information or clarification. Thank you for your time. ~~~~ MtKenyaReader (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Reply 8-JUN-2026

  Edit request declined  

• One of the provided references is a 112-page PDF in which none of the page numbers have been appended to the request.
  
• The request to list various board members/employees is declined, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY-#6.

Regards,  Spintendo  10:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. We have addressed both issues below.

Regarding the Board of Directors section, we accept the decline

per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and will not resubmit that section.

Regarding the investor booklet citations, we have identified the

specific page numbers for each claim:

Overview section figures (sourced from the FY2025 Investor

Booklet):Overview section figures (sourced from the FY2025 Investor

• Total assets KSh1.97 trillion – Page 12 (Press Release) and

Page 76 (Balance Sheet)

• Customer deposits KSh1.46 trillion – Page 12 and Page 76
• 22.4 million customer accounts – Page 12 and Page 23
• 98.2% outside branch, 88.4% via digital channels –

Page 12 and Page 61

• Shareholders' funds KSh326.1 billion – Page 76

History section (BCDC profit):

• Equity BCDC profit figures – Page 13 (Press Release)

This claim is also supported by an independent source:

Standard Media

Ownership section (shareholding table):

• March 2023 shareholding data – Page 43

This claim is also supported by an independent source:

MarketScreener

We have also noted a correction to our earlier submission:

shareholders' funds should read KSh326.1 billion (not KSh1.80

trillion as previously stated). We apologise for this error.

We would be grateful if you could reconsider the remaining

sections of the request. Thank you for your patience. MtKenyaReader (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Correction to my previous reply: The heading "Overview section

figures" appeared twice due to a formatting error. Please disregard

the duplicate line. All other information in the previous reply

remains correct. ~~~~ MtKenyaReader (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request – Q1 2026 financial and operational updates

Disclosure: I am a paid editor. I work for Bean Interactive, a digital marketing agency engaged by Equity Group Holdings to propose factual updates to this article. Full disclosure is posted on my user page per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

This is a supplementary request to update figures to Q1 2026 results, separate from our pending FY2025 request. All figures are sourced from independent third-party publications.

---

Overview section

Current text:

As of August 2021, it had assets exceeding KSh 1.119 Trillion

(US$10.1 billion). The group also had over 14 million customers in six African Great Lakes countries, with KSh790.6 billion (US$7.61 billion) in deposits.As of August 2021, it had assets exceeding KSh 1.119 Trillion

Proposed text:

As of March 2026, it had assets exceeding KSh2.04 trillion

(US$15.7 billion). The group also has over 22.7 million customers in seven African Great Lakes countries, with KSh1.48 trillion (US$11.4 billion) in deposits.As of August 2021, it had assets exceeding KSh 1.119 Trillion

---

Current text:

As of the financial year ending 2020, EGHL reported an asset

base worth Ksh1.015 trillion ($9.244 billion). The total group of customers was 14.3 million, with Ksh740.8 billion ($6.74 billion) in deposits.As of August 2021, it had assets exceeding KSh 1.119 Trillion

Proposed text:

As of the first quarter ending March 2026, EGHL reported an

asset base worth KSh2.04 trillion (US$15.7 billion). The total group of customers was 22.7 million, with KSh1.48 trillion (US$11.4 billion) in deposits.As of August 2021, it had assets exceeding KSh 1.119 Trillion

---

Current text:

In 2021, 98% of the Groups transactions by count were done via

its digital platforms which represented 65% of total value of transactions conducted by the group's customers.As of August 2021, it had assets exceeding KSh 1.119 Trillion

Proposed text:

In Q1 2026, 98.3% of the Group's transactions by count were

done via its digital platforms, which represented 89.5% of the total value of transactions conducted by the group's customers.As of August 2021, it had assets exceeding KSh 1.119 Trillion

---

New content – Equity Life Assurance Kenya (ELAK)

Proposed addition (new paragraph in Overview section):

Equity Group's insurance subsidiary, Equity Life Assurance

(Kenya) Limited (ELAK), was operationalised in March 2022. As of March 2026, ELAK had risen to 4th position in the industry in Gross Written Premiums with a 9% market share, and 2nd position in Group Credit Business with an 18% market share. As of March 2026, 21.3 million policies had been issued with 7.1 million unique customers, with over 79% of policies issued digitally. In 2025, ELAK was recognised as the Insurer of the Year at the Think Business Insurance Awards.As of August 2021, it had assets exceeding KSh 1.119 Trillion

---

New content – Equity Afia

Proposed addition (new paragraph in Overview section):

Equity Afia, a healthcare initiative under Equity Group

Foundation, was launched in 2015 using a franchising model to fund and support medical entrepreneurs who are alumni of the Equity Leaders Program. As of June 2025, Equity Afia had 154 clinics in Kenya with 4.9 million cumulative patient visits.As of August 2021, it had assets exceeding KSh 1.119 Trillion

---

History section – Cogebanque merger

Proposed addition (after the existing BCDC paragraph):

On 14 June 2023, Equity Group Holdings publicly disclosed its

entry into a binding term sheet for the acquisition of 91.93% of Cogebanque's issued shares from the Government of Rwanda and other sellers. On 3 January 2024, Equity Group Holdings announced the completion of the merger of Cogebanque and Equity Bank Rwanda, following the receipt of all corporate and regulatory approvals.As of August 2021, it had assets exceeding KSh 1.119 Trillion

MtKenyaReader (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

MtKenyaReader (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Esther Eidinow

Edit Request: Updates to Career and Selected Works.

I am Esther Eidinow, the subject of this article.

In line with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI), I am submitting the following factual updates for independent review and implementation.

Change 1: Prior career in scenario planning

• Section: Career (Beginning of section)
• Type of change: Addition
• Text to add: Before becoming an academic, Eidinow was a writer and editor, specialising in scenario planning.

Change 2: Virtual Reality Oracle project

• Section: Career (Paragraph 2)
• Instruction: At the end of paragraph 2, after "history" and before "In July", please insert:
• Text to add: From 2020–2023, she was the principal investigator of the Virtual Reality Oracle project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, leading an interdisciplinary team to create a VR experience of the Ancient Greek oracle of Zeus at Dodona in the fifth century BCE.

Change 3: Additions to Selected Works

• Section: Selected works
• Instruction: Please append the following publications:
• Text to add:
• Eidinow, Esther; Geertz, Armin, W.; North, John, eds. (2022). Cognitive Approaches to Ancient Religious Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-51533-4.
• Eidinow, Esther; Schliephake, Christopher, eds. (2024). Conversing with Chaos: Writing and Reading Environmental Disorder in Ancient Texts. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-350-34419-8.
• Eidinow, Esther; Gordon, Richard, eds. (2025). A Cultural History of Ancient Magic, vol 1: Antiquity. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-350-12379-3.
• Eidinow, Esther (2025). Metamorphosis, Landscape and Trauma. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-880773-5.
• Eidinow, Esther; Bowden, Hugh, eds. (2026). Visiting Dodona: Contexts of Unknowing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-009-63224-9.

Thank you for your time and assistance! FigsnWalnuts (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC) FigsnWalnuts (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Etzanoa

Edit request: Identify the "local teen"

I have a conflict of interest because I am the unnamed "local teen" mentioned in this article.

I'd like to request that my name, Adam Ziegler, be added to the sentence if editors agree it is supported by reliable sources.

Proposed change:

"...local teen, Adam Ziegler,..."

Reliable sources identifying me: Lawrence Journal World: https://www2.ljworld.com/news/2017/may/16/lawrence-teen-played-crucial-role-uncovering-long/ NPR: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/10/527817921/kansas-archaeologist-rediscovers-lost-native-american-city PBS: https://www.pbs.org/video/positively-kansas-106-ycmnbe/ New York Post: https://nypost.com/2017/04/18/teen-accidentally-helps-discover-lost-16th-century-civilization/ Daily Mail: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4426312/Etzanoa-long-lost-city-believed-Kansas.html

I am not requesting to make the edit myself because of my conflict of interest. Adamz222 (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad you found it, but who found it isn't as important as the cannonball actually being found. Maybe other editors will disagree with my comment? I reworded it to be more generic. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, and I understand the caution. A few points for whoever reviews this:

The reliable sources don't treat the finder as an incidental detail. They treat it as the story. The Lawrence Journal-World headline is "Lawrence teen played crucial role in uncovering long-lost city of Etzanoa." The New York Post headline is "Teen accidentally helps discover lost 16th-century civilization." NPR and the Daily Mail also name me in their coverage. Per WP:WEIGHT, the article should reflect what independent reliable sources emphasize, and several of them independently considered the finder's identity significant enough to lead with.

On WP:BLPNAME, the usual privacy concerns don't apply here. My name was already widely published in connection with this event by national outlets, and I'm the person in question requesting inclusion.

The proposed change adds two words and stays entirely within what the already-cited sources support. That said, I recognize this is the community's call and I'll respect the consensus either way.

One unrelated note while I'm here: there's a typo in the article. "Locawtion" should be "location." I'm not making the fix myself given my declared COI, but it's uncontroversial if anyone wants to grab it. Adamz222 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

As the creator and principal author of this article, I see no problem with adding the teen-age finder's name to the article.Smallchief (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Explora Journeys

History and Fleet updates

Hi, pleased to meet you. I would like to suggest a few updates to the History and Fleet sections that I believe will help improve the article, as follows:

• In the last paragraph of the History section, please delete the second sentence, which is an unnecessary level of detail and not noteworthy.

After removing the second sentence, the paragraph should look like this:

The line's first ship, Explora I, completed its sea trials in April 2023. Its first cruise began on 1 August 2023 departing from Copenhagen.

• Please also add the following sentence to the end of the History section as an update to keep the article current:

In 2024 and 2025 the cruise line won "Best Luxury Cruise Line" at the Cruise Critic Awards.

• Please add a new first paragraph to the Fleet section, which is a corrected version of the incorrect content found directly under the Future Fleet table, as follows:

As of July 2025, the fleet attained three construction milestones in Genoa Sestri Ponente—the location of the Italian shipyard where the ships are built. Explora III was floated out; a coin ceremony took place for Explora IV; and the first steel was cut for Explora V. The milestones represent the MSC Group's progress towards a total fleet of 6 ships after an investment of €3.5 billion.

• Please replace the sentence that is currently in the Fleet section with the following, which contains updated and correct information about the Fleet:

As of November 2025, the line's fleet consisted of two ships. A third ship is scheduled to leave from Barcelona in August 2026. Three more vessels are planned for departures in 2027 and 2028, and plan to include cruises to Asia and the Far East.

• Since the second table has the title "Future fleet" it makes sense that the "Current fleet" table also has a title. Please add ==Current Fleet== directly above the first table.
• Please delete the following content that is directly below the "Future Fleet" table. It is a mistake, and the content that was added above in the "Fleet" section is the corrected version of this content:

construction July 2025

• float-out of EXPLORA III
• coin ceremony of EXPLORA IV
• steel cutting of EXPLORA V

References

Thank you for adding these updates. Fanette Explora (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't action requests #1 and #2 here. For #1, the fire panel delay is short in length, was highlighted in reliable sources, and is useful information for our purposes. For #2, I can't find a reliable source that supports the cruise award (the source provided here is either a reprinted press release or the next-closest thing). To me, the mostly missing coverage about these awards in general indicates that these are rather minor and not worthy of mention here. The other requests seem fine, assuming that the LLM-generated sentences are accurate, but I'll wait to see if anyone else has thoughts. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I concur with ed17's assessment of #1 and #2. For the others, I'm not clear that there's something in particular that is inaccurate, except perhaps with Explora V. Small details about a given ship's progress through construction is perhaps not encyclopedia. Further, the language sounds much like what one would read in a brochure about the company. In sum; I don't see this as actionable. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hammersoft, thanks for your timely response. Please allow me to clarify my edit request as follows. Two of my requests are to correct errors, while others are to bring the page up to date.

• Please add ==Current fleet== as the heading above the first table. Since the second table has the heading "Future fleet," it makes sense that the first table is titled "Current fleet."
• The content found directly below the "Future fleet" table, is a mistake. Please delete that text to clean up the article. I rewrote the information, if you'd consider adding it to the beginning of the Fleet section:

As of July 2025, MSC Group' has invested €3.5 billion in its ship construction. Three of the planned six ships, Explora III, IV, and V, all celebrated milestones of ship-building in mid-July.

• Please update the outdated paragraph that is now in the "Fleet" section. Replace the paragraph that begins "As of September 2024," with:

As of November 2025, the line's fleet consisted of two ships. A third ship is scheduled to leave from Barcelona in August 2026. Three more vessels are planned for departures in 2027 and 2028, and plan to include cruises to Asia and the Far East.

References

Thanks for your help and understanding. Fanette Explora (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I implemented the simple clean up items, and left the other points for a new edit request, and closed this one. Fanette Explora (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Intro and Fleet section

Hi. Please consider making the following edits to update the article.

• Please add the following sentence to the end of the Introduction section:

The company is based in Geneva and is part of MSC's wider passenger business, operating as a sister company with MSC Cruises.

• Please add the following to the beginning of the Fleet section:

As of July 2025, MSC Group has invested €3.5 billion in its ship construction. Three of the planned six ships, Explora III, IV, and V, reached milestones of ship-building in mid-July, 2025.

• Please update the outdated paragraph that is now in the Fleet section. Replace the paragraph that begins "As of September 2024," with:

As of November 2025, the line's fleet consisted of two ships. A third ship is scheduled to leave from Barcelona in August 2026. Three more vessels are planned for departures in 2027 and 2028, and plan to include cruises to Asia and the Far East.

References

Thank you for your consideration. Fanette Explora (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Edits made. I amended the suggested wording in places for style and brevity. Paul W (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding sections

I would like to suggest adding two new sections to further update this article:

Please add a “Sustainability” section and include the following information:

MSC Group Cruises division announced reduced carbon emissions throughout 2024 in its annual sustainability report, and have formed a diversity and inclusion advisory committee.

In October 2025, Explora II connected to on-shore electricity at Valletta’s Grand Harbour, Malta, bringing the cruise line closer to its goal of shrinking its carbon footprint.

Please add a “Partnerships” section that includes the following:

Explora Journeys has partnered with London-based gallery Clarendon Fine Art, to host rotating exhibitions featuring works by Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, Yinka Shonibare, David Hockney, and others.

In 2025 Jannik Sinner was named as the brand ambassador for Explora Journeys. The purpose of the partnership was to create an onboard wellness program and improve nutrition.

In March 2025, the cruise division of MSC Group announced the continuation of the partnership between Explora Journeys, MSC Cruises and Formula 1, until 2030. Guests aboard Explora ships sailing to Monaco during the annual Monaco Grand Prix are granted access to front-row views of the race and are given access to race-themed entertainment over the course of the event.

References

Thank you, Paul W, for your previous edits to the article. I would appreciate it if you could review the above request and implement. Fanette Explora (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Fanette. Having reviewed this new batch of changes, I will decline implementation. I feel they are somewhat promotional in tone. Paul W (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Paul W for your quick response. Would you consider the following, which I believe is less promotional. Leave out the "Sustainability" section, and just add a shortened version of the "Partnerships" section, as follows:

Explora Journeys has hosted art exhibitions with works by Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, Yinka Shonibare, David Hockney, and others.

In 2025, Jannik Sinner was named as the brand ambassador for Explora Journeys.

There is a partnership between Explora Journeys, MSC Cruises and Formula 1.

References

Thanks again. Fanette Explora (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Faculty (company)

Edit Request / COI

My name is Holly, and I am head of PR and Communications for Faculty. Faculty is an AI company, with deep roots in technology, so we naturally have tremendous respect for Wikipedia and its many achievements in automation and content creation. We also respect Wikipedia's vibrant community and the rules that make the community work. As a result, I realise that I have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to the Faculty entry, so am posting my request here for some assistance from the community in making the Faculty entry more balanced.

As it stands, I believe that the entry does not meet Wikipedia's standards for neutral point of view. I am concerned that the edits made in July and August go beyond the facts in the cited sources and that the entry now includes characterisations of Faculty that are overly opinionated.

Specifically, I wanted to draw editors' attention the following issues:

1. The introductory sentence includes the phrase “…and most notable for its close links to the Conservative Party (UK), Dominic Cummings, Vote Leave, and Cambridge Analytica.” This characterisation is not supported by the citations that follow in the article, nor is it supported by the facts. As the sources themselves make clear, Faculty never worked with Cambridge Analytica. We did have a relationship with its parent company SCL, which was one of hundreds of companies that took part in our Fellowship intern programme. We suggest that this characterisation simply be removed as it is, ultimately, a matter of opinion.
2. The second para includes the phrase "under mysterious circumstances and is no longer mentioned as a founder on any company materials." This is obviously opinionated and relies on a source that does not meet Wikipedia's standards for authoritative third-party sources. Moreover, the cited source itself does not say or even suggest that anything mysterious occurred. I'd again suggest that this phrase is simply removed.
3. The whole fourth paragraph ("Between 2017-18...") is problematic, in my view. The citation doesn't actually present the facts as they are written in the cited article. I would again suggest removing the whole paragraph. As an alternative, I offer a summary that's more consistent with the facts as they are presented in the Guardian story:
   Faculty was previously known as ASI Data Science, and was mentioned in connection with the Vote Leave campaign in Carole Cadwalladr's series of articles about the Brexit campaign. ASI Data Science told the Guardian that they had never worked with Cambridge Analytica. Later, the Guardian reported that the company worked on the Vote Leave campaign and for Dynamic Maps, a private company owned by Dominic Cummings .
4. The fifth paragraph “Following the fallout…” is inaccurate. The decision to rename ASI as Faculty was long-planned. This paragraph cites our news release, which is not normally considered a sufficiently reliable source, and we have not been able to find a third-party source to confirm the timings or reasons behind the name change, so I suggest this paragraph be removed. The mention of the name change and the citation to the Guardian in the previous paragraph should be sufficient to cover the fact and substantiate it. Alternatively, if the news release is deemed sufficiently credible, I suggest changing this paragraph to read, “The company rebranded as Faculty in February 2019.”

I recognise that Faculty can be seen through the Guardian's coverage as a business with controversial political entanglements. While my colleagues and I would argue that this portrait is unfair, I accept that the articles cited here do create that appearance. I would only suggest that the facts from the sources are presented with better balance and greater precision in order to make the entry as accurate as possible and more consistent with Wikipedia standards.

I'm delighted to answer questions, discuss any of these points, and provide further information in whatever form editors would find most useful.

Thank you for considering my request.

Many thanks,

Hsearle-faculty (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hsearle-faculty: Thanks for posting here rather than trying to make any of the changes yourself. I've made a start on making some changes, but I need to do some more reading to fully understand the ins and outs of involvement with Vote Leave and Cambridge Analytica. @Crookesmoor and Jwslubbock: in case you didn't see this and have anything to add. SmartSE (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hsearle-faculty: Dear Holly, Wikipedia is not an advertising forum and follows specific guidelines. This does not allow the page to be fairer to your company, in a way that is discordant from the clear press coverage in reliable sources. Your company is most notable for its connections to the Conservative Party, Cambridge Analytica affiliates, and Vote Leave - this is well-documented. The company is not notable for its investors or its projects (other than the controversy already documented), so that is clearly the only reason why the company should even have a Wiki article.

Your claim that you only had a partnership with SCL appears inconsistent with the press coverage. This is not a matter of opinion, but a very clear matter of public record - including journalism by a Pulitzer Prize finalist. From the articles that I have read, Pascal Bugnion - the primary data engineer at Cambridge Analytica - was hired as the primary data engineer at Faculty. While I personally will retain a NPOV, your company does appear to have a reputation for not telling the truth, which is therefore likely to end up being reflected in Wiki articles. I do not believe it helpful that I can quickly, via reliable sources, find your claims on the talk page to also not be fully accurate. Rather than attempt to spin an article to provide a positive reflection of your company, the best approach would be to do something ethical, notable, kind, and decent - and that press coverage could then be reflected.

("Between 2017-18...") is also not problematic. A clear image in the article illustrates the connections between Trump to Faculty/ASI, so again I do feel that your suggested edit is a distortion of the truth as presented in a reliable source.

A founder of a company resigning prior to a major scandal being exposed is clearly a mysterious event. I do appreciate your attempt to spin the article in favour of your company, but you should please stop from attempting to solicit positive reviews by targetting Wiki editors. This is highly unethical. In addition, the Guardian is an *extremely* reliable source, and to imply otherwise is rather consistent with Faculty's documented modus operandi. It is not only this reliable source, but also a vast multitude of others (e.g. the Telegraph - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/08/24/vote-leave-ai-firm-handed-new-government-contract-map-covid/) that depict the controversial political entanglements.

The claim that the rebranding of Faculty was long-planned is completely unevidenced. Providing a publicly documented timeline and chronology of events is consistent with Wikipedia standards.

The Wired article being summarised in accordance with its title, is also clearly a neutral summary of an article.

I shall continue to update the information here, and see that there is additional information about Faculty's involvement in the additional Coronavirus testing app which is also missing from the page. This shall be added in due course. Fixerupper75 (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Smartse: I am highly concerned that you are continuing to make edits to the page without engaging with this talk page discussion, which is the correct procedure. The edits being made have been done unilaterally to provide edits for a company's PR representative, and which are not suitable for Wiki as they indicate a possible WP:COI, WP:UNDUE, notability issues, and WP:SOURCE. I shall begin a formal RfC if these issues cannot be resolved. Fixerupper75 (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Fixerupper75,

Thanks for your reply and for your interest in this entry.

We engaged here and through the {{Request edit}} template because we sought to do our best to follow Wikipedia’s rules. As we’ve said, we respect Wikipedia and its community of editors, and we understand the entry is not an advertising forum. As you say, the entry should follow specific guidelines, and it is our view that, at the moment, it does not.

To choose one example, Brexit Shambles clearly does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing. We have pointed out others.

To be clear, we did not ask that the entry be made fairer towards our company. We asked only that the community discuss the entry to determine whether it was a fair presentation of the facts as presented in the cited sources. As we have already explained, we do not believe it is. But we are not asking anyone to take our word for that. Only that editors review the materials with an open mind. We have offered our suggestions, but done so openly and transparently without transgressing any rules.

We understand and appreciate that debate and discussion are at the heart of this community. We are happy to participate in that debate and to respect collective decision-making. We trust the community to get to the right result, especially if the debate is conducted according to the rules. Moreover, we respect that you have a different view on many of the substantive points.

We would be very happy to leave subsequent work on this entry to editors with a NPOV. Perhaps it would be best if editors who were new to the topic reviewed the work and debate thus far, and brought a fresh and truly neutral perspective. It was with this in mind that I sought out SmartSE and asked for help. As I’ve said here and elsewhere, we’ve had no engagement with the Wikipedia community in the past, and I’d had none at all until Friday. My aim in asking for help was only to hasten the process a little, as I can see from the Request Edit page that there is something of a backlog. I can’t see anything remotely unethical about that.

Finally, I feel I should point out what I view as a suspicious pattern of activity of this entry. A number of its previous editors have been banned as sockpuppets. We have no explanation for the odd activities relating to this entry, and lack context to make a firm judgment, but I think we can agree that it is unusual. Your own user ID was created on Friday and has only been active on this entry. I think it’s reasonable to wonder whether you yourself are maintaining NPOV. But taken in the round, all of this leads to my suggestion that editors from the community review the materials afresh and decide for themselves the best way to proceed.

Hsearle-faculty (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hsearle-faculty,

To quote yourself, "My aim in asking for help was only to hasten the process a little", however now that we have established that your suggested edits would go against various Wikipedia guidelines, you are still here trying to align the article's spin, regardless. And to hasten which process specifically? The process of finding someone to write non-NPOV on an article, despite your COI?

"we also respect Wikipedia's vibrant community and the rules that make the community work". That is excellent to hear. Please then do familiarise yourself with WP:PERSONALATTACKS, WP:POVRAILROAD, and WP:BULLY - all of which constitute part of your most recent post. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia.

Regarding your accusations and personal attacks, in general, I cannot see any odd activities relating to this entry and to my eyes it is broadly consistent with other Wikipedia entries. Perhaps though you are referring to the suspicious activities of user Acajenka, who made substantial edits to the page on the day your company rebranded - along with lots of positive and non-NPOV - and who was banned as it was a sockpuppet of Banana19208, who created your company's page on Wikipedia. That is indeed highly unusual, and truly unprincipled.

"I can’t see anything remotely unethical about that." - Perhaps a new slogan for Faculty?

Fixerupper75 (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixerupper75,

Per the instructions on the COIN noticeboard, I wanted to let you know that I will be requesting a WP:COIN review of this entry in general and FixerUpper75 username, in particular. It’s clear that you do not have a NPOV as it relates to this entry, and the past activities on this entry are highly suspicious. For avoidance of doubt, Faculty has never engaged any paid editor to create or edit this entry. So the presence of so many sockpuppets suggest some other agenda is at play. As we have said, we ask only that our entry receive attention and review from editors with a truly NPOV.

==Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.

Hsearle-faculty (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all,

I wanted to draw editors’ attention to some further developments that particularly clarifies the conflict-of-interest issue in the final paragraph.

The paragraph starting “The same month it was reported Faculty…”, notes a contract Faculty was awarded by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and insinuates that this contract was won due to influence from senior government influence: “Theodore Agnew, the Cabinet Minister with responsibility for promoting the use of technology in public services had a shareholding in the company worth £90,000 as of May 2020 raising questions of potential conflict of interest.”

The National Audit Office recently released a review of 8,600 contracts awarded by the Government between January and July 2020. The NAO found no evidence that Lord Agnew, Minister of State at the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury, was involved in these procurements, which were contracted under delegated authority in different departments, none of them his own. It also found that the minister had disclosed his interests in line with the respective codes. You can find the full report here. Section relating to Faculty can be found on page 36.

In case it is of interest, you can also find the details on the work mentioned in the report with NHSX here:

1. The contract for this work is available on Contracts Finder here.
2. Details on the results so far of the work here

I have added these to the ‘Additional Information’ section as well along with some more information on our work with the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to support the Coronavirus response.

Many thanks,

Hsearle-faculty (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed updates to page

Hello, my name is Janine and I work for Faculty. I believe the current page still has substantial neutrality and emphasis issues; other comments here on Talk seem to echo that concern (e.g. see comments above by @RyanCarey1:). A few examples of ongoing issues:

• It relies heavily on sources that only briefly mention Faculty, or don't mention Faculty at all.
• It often misrepresents what the sources say or cherry-picks criticisms without including our defenses to those criticisms.
• It omits basic non-controversial information available in the sources.

In accordance with proper procedure for handling a conflict of interest on Wikipedia, I have prepared a draft here, in hopes of prompting discussion and seeing if editors find all or some of the content useful. This draft includes those criticisms in the current page that are properly sourced, but balances them with our defenses to those criticisms, and includes more general information. Janine Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I looked over your proposed changes. I've implemented them with some changes, and of course other users can make changes as well. My thoughts: A google search shows slightly more pages and news articles about investment opportunities than connections with Brexit. So I think shortening the lede is appropriate. The 'connections with Steve Bannon' etc. was a gross misrepresentation of the content of the cited article, which merely pointed out that ASI and Cambridge had a lot of employees that left one to work for another.

The monetary figures you provided were different than those in the source articles. Even if the articles are incorrect, we have to use the published numbers, unless you can get the accurate numbers into a news article (by holding a press conference, etc.).

The 'software and services' section read a bit like advertising copy, so I looked at other company pages such as Texas Instruments to find comparable material. I made some slight edits to have it read as more neutral.

I added a direct quote to the controversy section instead of an inference, and changed the wording of a few points to add a more neutral view.

As always, I welcome edits by other editors. Brirush (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This request has been answered, so I am closing the request. Z1720 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Brirush:. I just removed a couple broken links and added a logo image to the infobox. Thanks for catching any errors or other issues in the draft I proposed. Janine Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Smartse:. There is some repetition now between the content I proposed that was adopted in the Conflict of Interest section and the content you restored.

Here is the content you restored: "The Guardian revealed in 2020 that Faculty had received £260,000 from Dominic Cummings's private company, Dynamic Maps in 2018 and 2019." "Faculty were paid £114,000 by Vote Leave for services during the 2016 Brexit referendum.[6][5]"

Here is how that was summarized in the Conflict of Interest section: "His brother also worked with Dominic Cummings on the Vote Leave campaign that Faculty was later hired for."

The main difference is that I didn't include detailed dates, numbers (the money isn't that much), or language like "the Guardian revealed". I only suggest that one version or the other be used or merged, rather than the same information being repeated twice. Janine Lloyd-Jones (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You'd removed the info about Dynamic Maps entirely (note that this is also mentioned by The Telegraph). I don't see the slight duplication as a problem because it is a separate issue detailing the history of what work the company was involved with and discussing conflict of interest concerns. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Page Additions & Edits 17-10-24

Hi, my names Tom Davies and I'm the Marketing Lead at Faculty. I wanted to suggest some page additions and edits, outlined below in bold with citations where relevant:

_History

- By 2021, 300 graduates and 200 companies had used the fellowship programme.  The fellowship was awarded a Princess Royal Training Award in 2022.

- The company was renamed to its current name, "Faculty", in February 2019. In the same year, then Prime Minister Theresa May asked Warner to sit on her AI Council. The Council was later disbanded.

- In June 2021, Janine Lloyd-Jones joined Faculty from the Foreign Office as the company's first marketing and communications director, having worked in government communications for 15 years. (Could this line be removed as the the employee has since left the company)

- In March 2023, OpenAI and Faculty partnered to find use cases for generative AI.  In September 2024, Faculty were listed as one of OpenAI's external red-teamers for their new line of models. The UK Government has also asked Faculty to assess risks in cutting-edge AI development. In 2023, Marc Warner was invited to attend the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park.

Services

- Faculty develops artificial intelligence software for healthcare, defence, energy, consumer, and governmental organisations. Example projects include working to reduce the number of flyers mailed that are unlikely to result in purchases and reducing the number of sandwiches stored on planes to go to waste. They have also delivered projects to predict when NHS patients will be discharged from hospitals, and direct hydrogen-generating boats towards the wind.

Conflict of interest concerns

Warner said he was there at their client's request and would attend whatever meetings their client, the National Health Service, felt were useful. The National Audit Office found there had been no wrongdoing.

Finally could I suggest that some of the content currently in the History section be relocated to a new section outlined below:

Controversies

In May 2017, The Observer published an investigative article by Carole Cadwalladr which revealed links between Faculty and Cambridge Analytica, notorious for their involvement in the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The investigation revealed that staff had moved between the two companies and that they jointly hosted events. Faculty were paid £114,000 by Vote Leave for services during the 2016 Brexit referendum. The Guardian revealed in 2020 that Faculty had received £260,000 from Dominic Cummings's private company, Dynamic Maps in 2018 and 2019.

According to Faculty, it stopped doing political work in 2019.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. Tom.Davies.48 (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tom.Davies.48: We primarily base content on independent, secondary sources such as newspapers. The links you've provided are primary sources with the exception of the information-age.com article, but that is clearly an example of churnalism based on this press release so can't be considered independent. We do not remove information because it is out of date - it still happened. Finally, controversy sections are explicitly strongly discouraged - see WP:CRITS - and integrating them into the article is the preferred way to deal with them. Consequently, I am declining this requested edit. SmartSE (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Supporting factual updates for Faculty

Hi. I’m reaching out on behalf of Faculty to request assistance with improving the Faculty (company) article. I work for Kekst CNC, which is a signatory to the Industry Statement on Wikipedia, and therefore following guidelines due to our COI.

Note that I am engaging through WikiProject Companies to work with editors to improve the quality of this C-Class article, respecting all of Wikipedia’s policies. You can see my latest request here. MichaelPWhite (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Please make the request here using {{edit COI}} not at WT:COMPANIES. Also please read WP:VANDALISM. SmartSE (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for help. Per the request in WikiProject Companies, would you be comfortable if we share a draft of the article with you that aims to follow guidelines? MichaelPWhite (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

It would be preferable to start small with requests in the form of add X, remove Y rather than a complete rewrite. This is easier to review and also avoids you wasting time drafting potentially unsuitable content. SmartSE (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, we wish to remove the ‘Conflict of interest concerns’ section – as you’ve flagged, WP:CRITS highlights these sections should be avoided as they violate WP:NPOV. The header itself declares a verdict, so either remove or rename to something like “Government work”

With that in mind, here are the suggested changes (which retains the original references):

“Faculty has connections to political figures in UK government. In some instances, Faculty's government contracts have raised conflict of interest concerns.”

REMOVE: The individual facts of the references speak for themselves without editorial framing required. If you need a summary, then ensure NPOV, “Some newspapers including The Guardian and The Observer reported on Faculty’s government work and political connections. Faculty said it complies with conflict of interest best practices."

“Faculty founder Marc Warner's brother was a political advisor with access to the meetings of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). His brother also worked with Dominic Cummings on the Vote Leave campaign for which Faculty was later hired.

FIX: Marc Warner’s brother is not the subject of the article, so the facts of the article should be instead followed in NPOV, “According to Wired, Marc Warner’s brother Ben Warner served as a political advisor and had attended SAGE meetings." – This removes the juxtaposition with Faculty’s hiring, which implies a causal link that the article does not establish.

“A Faculty executive was on the board of CDEI, when CDEI chose to hire Faculty. Faculty said the executive recused himself from the decision.

REMOVE: This sentence describes standard governance procedure. If it’s kept, then perhaps, "A Faculty executive who sat on the CDEI board recused himself from CDEI’s decision to hire Faculty, according to the company."

"The Department of Health gave Faculty £400,000 worth of COVID-related contracts without getting competitive bids due to an "urgent need to bring in additional analytics support to help inform our response to the coronavirus pandemic", according to the department."

FIX: Requires essential context, “During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Health awarded Faculty £400,000 in contracts through emergency procurement procedures, citing urgent analytical needs. Such emergency procurement was widely used across government pandemic response." This sentence describes standard governance procedure.

“Additionally, politician Lord Agnew the Cabinet Minister with responsibility for promoting the use of technology in public services, owned £90,000 worth of Faculty's shares. Agnew gave up control of his shares in the company in September 2020.”

FIX: "Lord Agnew, a Cabinet Minister responsible for promoting technology in public services, held £90,000 of Faculty shares. He transferred control of these shares in September 2020." ‘Additionally’ chains this to proceeding unrelated items, building an incorrect case for impropriety.

“During Faculty's COVID-related work, Faculty founder Marc Warner attended a SAGE meeting, raising criticisms about the prospects of a private company influencing government policies. Warner said he was there at their client's request and would attend whatever meetings their client, the National Health Service, felt were useful."

FIX: "Faculty founder Marc Warner attended a SAGE meeting during the company’s pandemic work, at the NHS’s request." There are no specific or wider criticisms per the reference material and a contractor attending a meeting at their client’s request is normal (WP:UNDUE).

“The project also prompted concerns regarding the privacy of patient data used for the project. The company responded that it did not have access to any health data through its work on the project and the data was anonymous.”

FIX: "Faculty stated it did not have access to patient health data during the project and that all data used was anonymous. Some press coverage raised questions about data privacy in the project." No reference answers the ‘prompted concerns’ allegation and Faculty themselves said that it had no access to health data… so technically these sentences could be removed.

Finally, we challenge the lead intro sentence to the overall article, “Some of its governmental and political work has attracted conflict of interest concerns.”

REMOVE: ‘Attracted’ implies concerns arose, framing this as inherent to Faculty rather than claims made by select media publications. It is not NPOV

At this stage we’re focusing on corrections and removals, given these aspects are reputationally damaging and unsubstantiated. MichaelPWhite (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks I'll take a look at this and consider making changes. Can you please read WP:NPOV though? From what you've written, it seems as if you misunderstand what it means and that's only going to complicate any discussion. In short, it means representing what sources report in proportion to what is reported. It does not mean that article content should be neutral as you seem to imply. SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

On the first point, I don't think it is correct to frame the COI concerns as only being raised by newspapers. From here we have: At the meeting, in June, Ben Warner was directly asked how he ensured that his senior government position “did not influence” the awarding of several contracts to his brother’s company. The Guardian understands that he did not answer the question. The Cabinet Office declined to comment. So this shows that the COI concerns were being discussed in government. What isn't clear from the current article though is that Ben Warner worked for Faculty prior to his government appointment. It would be good if we could include when he left Faculty, but I am not sure if that's been reported. SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Found a source for that - he was at Faculty from 2015 to 2019. This is a primary source, but straight from the horse's mouth as until September 2019. SmartSE (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

On the second point, we have The Telegraph reporting Much of the controversy revolves around Warner’s brother Ben, who worked with Cummings on the Vote Leave campaign, when Faculty advised on reducing advertising costs, and analysed polling, allegedly helping to identify potential Leave voters who did not normally vote as well as Wired and various articles in The Guardian. Adding "according to Wired" makes it sound as if only they have reported this. As the Telegraph quote makes clear, his involvement is central to the controversy and our article should reflect that. SmartSE (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to engage with this so thoroughly. I also appreciate the work into the additional sources you have presented.

On your NPOV point: I take the correction. You're right that NPOV means representing what reliable sources report, in proportion, and I should have been clearer in my framing. I'm not arguing that critical content should be removed because it's negative, instead I'm arguing that some of the current presentation goes beyond what the sources themselves say, and that the structural choices amplify a particular reading. I'll try to be more precise below.

On Ben Warner: I accept your point that the COI concerns were raised in government, not just by newspapers. The Guardian's reporting that he was directly asked about contract influence at a government meeting and declined to answer is clearly significant and sourced. I also accept that The Telegraph, Wired, and The Guardian all reported on his involvement, so attributing it to a single publication was wrong. So I withdraw that suggestion...

However, I'd still argue the current article text has a structural issue here. The sentence as written, "His brother also worked with Dominic Cummings on the Vote Leave campaign for which Faculty was later hired”, juxtaposes two facts (brother's Vote Leave work → Faculty's hiring) in a way that implies the brother's involvement caused or facilitated Faculty's hiring. If The Telegraph reports that "much of the controversy revolves around" this connection, then let's attribute that framing to The Telegraph rather than presenting it as Wikipedia's own editorial voice. Something like: "The Telegraph reported that much of the controversy around Faculty's government work centred on Ben Warner's prior involvement with Vote Leave and subsequent government role." That way the proportionality you're rightly pointing to is preserved, but it's attributed rather than stated as encyclopaedic fact. The fact that Ben Warner was at Faculty from 2015 to 2019 is useful context and I'd support including it. It helps the reader understand the timeline rather than having to infer connections.

Let me know what you think and I’m happy to work through the remaining points. MichaelPWhite (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Bumping this as the discussion has been inactive for over a month. I believe we reached a reasonable point of progress above and I'm keen to resolve the remaining points. If any editors watching this page have views on the changes, I'd welcome input. Happy to open an WP:RFC if that would help move things forward. MichaelPWhite (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

A response has not yet been received for this question.

Edit request reply 8-JUN-2026

  Request closed for inactivity  

• The above edit request has not received any responses over the past 3 weeks (22 days in total).
• Discussion is often a key component to implementing edits, and requests may be adversely affected when they fail to garner input from either reviewing or requesting editors. In light of this — and as a safeguard — this request has been declined as needing more discussion.
• The COI editor is urged to revive stalled communications by making contact with local editors on those editor's own talk pages, and then by moving those discussions back to this talk page.
• The COI editor may also wish to broadcast requests for edits at the talk pages of the WikiProjects which give advice on this article. Those projects are usually listed at the top of an article's talk page.

Regards,  Spintendo  23:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

References

COI request: rename section and revise opening framing

Thanks to the editor who has offered to help. To keep this easy to review, I'm limiting this request to a single, narrow change: the "Conflict of interest concerns" section header and its opening two sentences. All existing references are retained; no new sources are introduced. Ref tags are shown below as literal source code (via <nowiki>) so this Talk post doesn't try to render them. 1. Rename the section header * Change from: == Conflict of interest concerns == * Change to: == Government work == Rationale: per WP:CRITS, standalone "controversy" or "criticism" style section headers should generally be avoided as they can imply a verdict in the section title itself. A neutral, descriptive header is preferred. 2. Replace the opening two sentences of the section * Remove:

Faculty had connections to political figures in the government led by Boris Johnson.<ref name="Guardian-Evans2020" /><ref name="Guardian-Pegg" /> In some instances, Faculty's government contracts have raised conflict of interest concerns.<ref name="Guardian-Pegg" /><ref name="Telegraph-Boland" /> Faculty said it complies with conflict of interest best practices and government procurement procedures.<ref name="Guardian-Evans2020" />

* Replace with:

Some newspapers including The Guardian and The Observer reported on Faculty's government work and political connections.<ref name="Guardian-Evans2020" /><ref name="Guardian-Pegg" /><ref name="Observer-Cadwalladr" /> Faculty said it complies with conflict of interest best practices.<ref name="Guardian-Evans2020" />

Rationale: the current opening editorialises ("raised conflict of interest concerns") in Wikipedia's own voice, rather than attributing the framing to the reporting outlets. The proposed wording attributes the reporting to the publications that produced it, retains every existing citation, and preserves Faculty's stated position. For the reviewing editor's reference, the named refs above correspond to citations already defined on the live article: Guardian-Evans2020 = Evans, Guardian, 2 June 2020; Guardian-Pegg = Pegg, Guardian, 12 July 2020; Observer-Cadwalladr = Cadwalladr, Observer, 7 May 2017; Telegraph-Boland = Boland, The Telegraph, 17 October 2020. Thanks for your time. MichaelPWhite (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to have someone else formally review this, but as I've already said above, changing it to "some newspapers" implies that there is some doubt to the matter, when this is definitely not the case as it was being discussed in government. It is not an opinion, but a statement of fact, so does not require attribution. I don't understand the request about section headers - this is already included as a sub-section of the government work section and so changing it to be a sub-section of the same name doesn't make sense. Further, the current section header is not a controversy or criticism section as pointed out to be problematic in CRIT. SmartSE (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Faherty Brand

Section updates and additions

Hi, this article could use some updating and cleanup. Here are some initial suggestions:

Please add to the History section:

• Alex and Mike grew up in Spring Lake, New Jersey, where they were exposed to surfing culture. They developed the brand based on their time spent on the Jersey Shore.
• In early 2020, the company opened 13 stores and by 2026 had opened over 80 stores.
• In March 2026, Faherty Brand opened a store in Biarritz, France.

Please add a "Sustainability" section that incorporates the content in the "Second Wave Resale Program" subsection as well as the following information:

Faherty Brand is a certified B Corporation, a member of One Percent for the Planet, and donates 1% of its revenue to environmental initiatives. The company uses recycled polyester yarn made from water bottles. In February 2025, the company began selling a t-shirt made from regenerative cotton that requires less water for production.

References

I am happy for the community's feedback to help bring this article closer to Wikipedia standards. Thank you. Ella77arizona (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I have added in these edits, though I will plan to go back and review the article as a whole at a later time, as it does seem to slightly tilt toward promotional content. Red0ctober22 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Red0ctober22! Ella77arizona (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Further edits to History section

Hi, I’d like to suggest some further updates to the article, including adjusting the promotional tone, as Red0ctober22 raised above. The History section is not written in chronological order, making it confusing to follow. Below is my suggested updated History section. Please note that I didn't remove any content, just summarized the language and tweaked the order so that it is chronological, and that I merged the "Stores" section here:

Faherty Brand was created in 2013 by twin brothers, Alex and Mike Faherty. The brothers grew up in Spring Lake, NJ, where they spent their childhood surfing and exposed to surfing culture. Alex previously worked in private equity at Cerberus and Mike Faherty worked as a fashion designer for Ralph Lauren, where he learned about fabric mills, design processes, and pattern creation. The brothers founded Faherty Brand with the idea of creating the "perfect" board short, which had both a shorter inseam and added cotton, with a wash technique for softness and comfort. In 2013, Faherty Brand released its first full clothing line in a "Beach Shack on Wheels," which they drove cross-country and sold their line through local boutiques. In 2014, Faherty Brand was sold in department stores such as Barney's, Bloomingdale's and Nordstrom, in addition to a small store in Los Angeles' Fred Segal and about 60 boutique stores. In 2016, they opened the first store in Malibu, California. The company moved to brick-and-mortar retail during the COVID-19 pandemic when the dip in the real estate market allowed the Faherty brothers to purchase stores at a lower price. In the spring of 2020, Faherty Brand launched a full women's collection, with dresses being particularly popular, accounting for 40% of all women's sales.

By early 2020, the company opened 13 stores and by 2026 had opened over 80 stores. Faherty Brand has a retail presence in major cities including New York, Boston, Washington, Los Angeles, as well as in resort towns. In March 2026, Faherty Brand opened their first international store in Biarritz, France. The brand is sold in over 250 stores worldwide. The company’s supply chain spans Europe, South America, North America, and Asia.

Faherty began exploring the sale of a minority stake in the business to an external investor in late 2023.

One of the communities that Faherty Brand has particularly invested in is the Native American community. The brand, anticipating criticism for appropriating Native American designs, announced plans to establish long-term relationships with Native American designers.

References

Pinging Red0ctober22, who mentioned taking another look at the overall article. I hope you'll consider this update. Thank you, Ella77arizona (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

These suggestions look good and I have added them, though your links to the locations of Spring Lake and Malibu were links to disambiguation pages, so that fix was the only difference. Red0ctober22 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Updating lead text and Infobox & removing irrelevant sentence

Hello again, to better summarize the article and reflect the recent changes made, please update the lead text to the following:

Faherty Brand is an American clothing company founded by twin brothers Alex and Mike Faherty in 2013. They are a certified B Corporation and have a resale program called "Second Wave." As of 2026, the company has over 80 brick and mortar stores and their clothing brand is sold in over 250 stores worldwide.

Please add to the Infobox:

• A new ‘Products’ parameter with boardshorts, swimwear, casual menswear and womenswear.
• Updated figures for the number of stores: 80+; and number of employees: 500.

Finally, please remove the following sentence in the History section due to WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RELEVANCE:

Faherty began exploring the sale of a minority stake in the business to an external investor in late 2023.

References

Pinging Red0ctober22 to review these suggestions. Given the updated language and refined tone to this article, I hope you’ll consider taking down the tag on the page as well. Thank you, Ella77arizona (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I did apply most of these changes. A few notes though:

The proposed "Products" parameter you had isn't exactly how that parameter works. This asks to list specific products that the company sells that are unique to them. For example, Apple's "Products" parameter would have the iPhone, or McDonalds' would have the Big Mac. It is not for general terms like "boardshorts" or "swimwear"

The lead is supposed to be very broad and general, so I feel the information you wanted to list about sustainability goes a little too into detail, though I kept the part about the B Corporation. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates, Red0ctober22! Ella77arizona (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Fanfix

Edits requested

Would appreciate the community's consideration of the following edits to this article to reflect recent developments.

• Separate the current History and Operations section to be two distinct sections
• In the newly created History section, Add information about the company’s initial funding from Antler, suggested language below:

In 2020, Fanfix received initial funding from Antler; founders Harry Gestetner and Simon Pompan were the youngest founders Antler had ever supported.

• In the newly created Operations section, Add the 2025 acquisition of the Sunroom startup, suggested language below:

In 2025, Fanfix acquired Sunroom, a startup designed to allow women and non-binary content creators monetize their web-based communities.

Bluecenter2020 (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I've added a mention of Antler, but the claim about them being the youngest ever is trivial. The second change does not have a reliable source. (It's ironic that an outlet called "Missing Perspectives" wouldn't bother to give byline credit, but since it reads like AI slop churnalism anyway, perhaps that's for the best.) If you find a better source, we could reevaluate. Grayfell (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Grayfell. I appreciate all you did here. Your point about the sourcing on the Sunroom acquisition is well taken. This was covered in a press release that was picked up by Yahoo!Finance; do you think it falls into the ABOUTSELF category? Bluecenter2020 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I've used the press release to mention the acquisition. Grayfell (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Including Updated Numbers

Can the following financial and numerical details be included in the article, in both the content and the infobox? While the sources are press releases, perhaps this information can be included as it is (also) covered by ABOUTSELF.

• Revenue as of March 2026 = $250 million
• Users as of March 2025 = 15 million+

Similarly, I'd like to suggest adding some additional information to the description of what Fanfix is. Something like this (note-the Observer article is already used as source 2 in the article):

Fanfix allows subscribers to pay for exclusive content and direct messaging with creators; each content creator determines their own pricing. Fanfix creators must apply to use the app and are offered performance-based incentives, but not to promote the app itself. Grayfell and Spiral6800, what do you think? Thanks, Bluecenter2020 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Bluecenter2020 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: @Bluecenter2020, payouts to creators is not the same thing as revenue. Also, I'm seeing multiple different numbers for users when looking up info about this company. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention Ktkvtsh, apologies for any confusion.

The most recent publicly available revenue is a 2023 figure of $35 million, sourced by this TechCrunch article. Can this be included in both the content and infobox? Perhaps the $250 million payout to creators figure can be included in the content as well?

Regarding the number of users, the most updated figure comes from the company's most recent press release (and picked up by news agencies as listed, #2 and #3 in the references above). Previous figures are likely outdated.

Please consider incorporating these details along with the expanded description of the company. Looking forward to working together. Thank you, Bluecenter2020 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Partly done by adding a better platform description. That is all I added. I believe anything else would be advertising for the company. Others may disagree and you are free to get a second opinion. Ktkvtsh (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Ktkvtsh. Appreciate your time and attention. It was my understanding that AUM is a standard feature of infoboxes and article content. I am pulling together an additional request and will post soon. All the best, Bluecenter2020 (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sounds good. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Addition of details

Requesting approval for inclusion of the following details:

• Fanfix launched in the Middle East in March 2023
• Fanfix includes an analytics dashboard for tracking earnings, subscriber count, and other performance metrics.

(this Tech Crunch article appears as reference 1 in the current content)

• Each influencer sets a monthly subscription fee from $5 - $50 per month. The highest earner on Fanfix makes $7 million per year; multiple users make more than $1 million yearly.

(this Observer article appears as reference 2 in the current content)

Ktkvtsh, it was great collaborating with you earlier; would you consider these additions as well? Thank you, Bluecenter2020 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Bluecenter2020 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:CANVASS. I have added the info about the Middle East launch. The other changes will need a lot more work to be neutral. Again, Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Grayfell. Appreciate your help and input.

What do you think of this rework for these two sentences, to be added to /modify the end of the first paragraph of the History and operations section (below shows the modifications):

Fanfix was founded in December 2020 by college students Harry Gestetner, Simon Pompan and was later joined by Cameron Dallas as cofounder. Initial funding was provided by the venture capital firm Antler. Fanfix allows creators to place posts, videos and messages behind a paywall. The platform also includes analytics and statistics parameters for creators to track engagement. Creators set monthly subscription prices, varying from $5-50 per month, and the platform also offers paid direct messaging features. Creators' earnings on Fanfix vary; the highest earner on Fanfix made $7 million per year in 2023. Bluecenter2020 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

This reads like it’s meant to draw people into the website. Like advertising. Keeping in mind that you work for the company, it feels like you’ve been tasked with getting all of this added to the page for your job. I believe the article reads fine as it is now. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Sources

revenue + users

Per the discussion above, I am asking the community to consider including the revenue figure, number of users, and payouts to creators in the article (the first two in the infobox as well).

• Revenue as of March 2025 = $175 million

• Users as of June 2026 = 63 million

• Payouts to creators as of June 2026 = $300 million

Source 1 is a press release; would ABOUTSELF allow for the inclusion of this information?

References

~2026-39440-10 (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

---

← Previous page Next page→