Talk:Christopher Billopp (Royal Navy officer)

	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 articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / Maritime / British / European C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

The Staten Island story

While CGP Grey (user:CGPGrey) (who deleted the section) makes a good case for the race being complete fabrication in his video on Youtube, the story would still be notable as a story. Just because founding myths usually are, in fact, myths, it does not necessarily follow that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles about Romulus and Remus, the Yellow Emperor or Hiawatha. Perhaps a rewrite is preferable to an outright delete? --ZgB (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Also, the current version needs to be edited per WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised he actually made the edit hinted at in the video. Liam Neeson never did that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I saw the video, I came here to see if he actually made the edit. I was not disappointed. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now every once in a while, a random viewer will actually come here and remove that paragraph with no reasoning. Damn you, Grey! Meteorname (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, the original text of the article can be restored. Source it to the old New York Times story, and then add below it that, say, "In 2019, YouTube personality CGP Grey published a video in which he researched the origins of the story and concluded that the event was likely embellished by local folklore, if it indeed actually took place." I'm gonna be bold and do that right now. RexSueciae (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, other people can tweak it as they see fit, but how's that? RexSueciae (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone not on mobile add a mentioned in the media tag? Sdkb (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the Template:Press, I don't think it quite fits. It's something selfpublished, not what I would understand as a "press source". I added it as WP:EL though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2019

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

Add in the legacy section that Youtuber CGP Grey attempted to find the source of the story involving Billopp's route around Staten Island, but eventually was unable to do so. Citation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex74x_gqTU0 Layfet (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea that a video released a day or two ago, that as of my writing has 1.1M views, caused the historicity of the story to "gain prominence" is laying it on a little thick.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.99.198.194 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just edited that part. Doubtful if Grey should be mentioned in article text at this point. If The New Yorker or similar writes an article about his video it's probably ok, but just existing is not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] It's not The New Yorker, but it's not nothing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think that edit is pretty good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.99.198.194 (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not weighing in on the edit request, but I would argue that CGP Grey has a decently strong claim to being a reliable secondary source. His videos are more robustly fact checked and receive more views than many media outlets we cite, and being in YouTube rather than in print doesn't count against that. Sdkb (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The video is definitely not a reliable secondary source. It is a self-published source; it is not peer-reviewed, published in an academic publication, or by a news organization. Popularity doesn't determine reliability. Nardog (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm closing this edit request as mention of the video has been added to the article. NiciVampireHeart 09:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]