Talk:Javier Pérez de Cuéllar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The real purpose of this talk page is to share and add important information to the article, NOT for political propaganda.--AAAAA 17:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Blah, I don't see any propaganda here anyway --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 21:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Aliens?

The UN Secretary General watching aliens? What the...? ArquiWHAT 20:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave it out

A fringe theory the man apparently denies. I agree with Wikidemo. Cap'n Walker 19:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Alien abduction witness

The main article is written such that a reader may assumes the alleged witnessing of an alien abduction by the subject to be factually established, but the sources cited do not support this. Much authoritative opinion considers alegations of alien abduction to be not credible. In the interests of maintaining factuality and objectivity, this reference should be phrased in terms of "alleged" or "supposed" or otherwise indicate its status as a point of view.

Regards Ssmethurst 08:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This claim is not backed up by any authoritative source, and is written so as to suggest that it is accepted fact. It's simply not appropriate for Wikipedia in this form - if anything, it should comprise a minor point in a trivia section, and in my opinion it does not even qualify for that. HiramShadraski 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This account has been documented by Bud Hopkin's book on the subject and he has personally stated in past interviews that he did in fact meet with Perez de Cuellar. I can provide at least five citations that support this entry. As long as something can be validated by claims, it can be added to Wikipedia as long as it is not hurtful or slanderous. This entry is neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XLR8TION (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The website used as a reference doesn't look like a reliable source as all it does is detail unsupported claims. Do you have a more credible reference? --Victor12 15:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can provide other sources to validate this. In the meantime, I feel that such info should be incorporated into the article. XLR8TION 17:30, 20 September 2007

As indicated in the warning above Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. So I'm gonna remove this until you come up with better sources. --Victor12 21:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What warning? First you do not own the article. Anything that can be properly sourced can be added to an article. Are you claiming ownership of this article Victor? I will provide several citations and readd the content once I do locate them. --XLR8TION 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See at the top of this page. Also, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy.

So the question is, are your sources reliable? The about.com link is clearly not reliable as it has no sources itself. It's just a story. As for the other links you have added, have you read them?

• The first one, by Sandow, mentions serious problems with this story, just read the last section of the page.
• The second one also deals with several problems in the case like changing accounts and so on. Also, check at the end a review of Hopkins book.
• The third one, the "A Critique of Budd Hopkins' Case of the UFO Abduction" basically tells the whole thing is a hoax
• The fourth one is a review of Hopkins book which says it lacks any evidence.

In conclusion, your own sources say there's no evidence for this case. Thus, per Wiki policy I'm gonna remove it again. --Victor12 01:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The case has been documented in many media sources. I have properly sourced everything and even used the word "alledged" to validate anything said in the article. It seems that you are claiming ownership of this article and disregarding facts. I have seen many articles that address speculative information especially when it related to the sexual oritentation of many celebrities and this has been discussed in a civil non libelous manner. Further attempts to dispell the information I have added to this article will only lead to an edit war and I do not want that and I am sure on one does. Let's come to a compromise on what can be included before you decide to delete this information. If you disregard this invitation and continue to delete my contributions, I will have to open a case dispute with an administrator. Let's save us some time and discuss a compromise.--XLR8TION 15:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Again, all of your sources cast doubt that this ever happened, Perez de Cuellar himself has denied it several times. There's no serious evidence that this ever happened. Why should it be on the article? --Victor12 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Victor, the word "alledged" has been utilized in the article. There have been many denials in the past of many in the past of many famous events and scenarios such as famous trysts between notable celebrities (e.g. Gennifer Flowers and Bill Clinton) and even notable UFO sightings by such notables as John Lennon and Jimmy Carter. While both John and Jimmy did not deny their sightings, others out there might assume that they were hallucinating or on something. The word "alleged" can allow the incorporation of this material because while Bud Hopkins is the world's formeost expert on ufology and in his book about the incident he swears that he met Perez de Cuellar in person, the latter can deny such meeting due to many factors. The Cortile-Napolitano case has been witnessed by many eywitnesses who have given their testimony of what happened, regardless of what Perez Cuellar's denial, he could have witnessed the incident. Using key choice words such as "alleged" and "speculative" will allow the reader to delve more into the tiopic and let them decide for themselves.

Oveer the past year I have two edit wars with others editor's regarding the ethnicty of several notable figures (Sammy Davis, Jr.; Elvera Davis; Jeff Bezos; Fantasia Barrino are some examples). If you look at some of those articles both views were presented along with citations justifying each view. Me and another editor who handled the dispute looked into every resource to see what can be validated before we came toa compromise on how the material should be presented. This teamwork allows for Wikipedia to allow the reader to use judgement and logic on determing what is hearsay and what is fact and/or speculation.--XLR8TION 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopkins book is not enough. As you can see in your own links it has been torn to pieces by critics who agree that the story is not credible. It goes against Wikipedia policy to put such speculations on articles. Besides being an example of WP:Undue weight, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. This clearly falls in the category of unreliable sources and as such should be removed. Wikipedia articles are not there to put every kind of rumor for readers to decide whether they're true or not, information has to be verifiable by reliable sources,if not, it should be removed. Please check your own links for lots criticism about this case, including the supposed witnesses. I'll put up a RfC to get more feedback on this. --Victor12 21:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I have rewritten the passage on the supposed alien abduction as a trivia section, and have cleaned up and condensed the text. I know that trivia sections are deprecated, and (as previously indicated) I agree with Victor12 et al that the story has no place here, but perhaps it will serve as a more reasonable temporary placeholder while the dispute is being resolved. HiramShadraski 00:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me like a sensible move while we wait for comments. --Victor12 01:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

seems like it could be mentioned, as per WP:FRINGE Dlabtot 04:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm still not very comfortable with the inclusion of this material, though. Should it be rewritten, or excised? Personally, I'm in favor of the latter. HiramShadraski 04:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize; I was hasty when I posted that: I hadn't even looked at the 'source'. No it shouldn't be included. Sorry for the confusion. Dlabtot 05:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be removed. It has no substantiated factual connection to the subject at all, does not seem likely to be true though unsubstantiated, neither is it particularly notable. Mention it on Budd Hopkins if you think it's a significant element of his career. Subsolar 12:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, however, with citations it should be included as I have explained in the past.--XLR8TION 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

---

User XLR8TION seems bound and determined to flog this UFO story here. What can be done about this? HiramShadraski 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

First Hiram, Trivia sections are not encouraged on this site. If you're such an expert editor then tthis section should be renamed "Notes" as that is a more appropriate title for the section. Second, in Hopkins book, Hopkins does confirm his meeting with Cuellar. If Cuellar says it did not happen, well then that is his opinion, however, the fact that Hopkins claims that he did meet with Cuellar should be included as they way you have worded this article seems biased and maked such claim seem like modern urban legend. Be fair and practical in writing and editing. I would hate for this discussion to be mediated by a third party editor. The claim is in a book which I can provide you the ISBN number and you can purchase or borrow from your local library. Cuellar to this date could have sued him for slander but has not. If something is so untrue or seems to riducule an individual they have the right to take action for monetary damages or re-editing of such material. Howard K. Stern recently sued an author who claimed that he had an affair with Larry Birkhead. He sued and I am sure if Cuellar was so disturbed by Hopkins claim than he would have taken action over a decade ago when the book was published.--XLR8TION 02:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether he sued or not. Per Wikipedia's policy controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. This UFO incident is rather poorly sourced as it only relies on Hopkins book, which by all accounts is quite unreliable. Check your own links please, all of them cast serious doubts on Hopkins account. As said by the two editors who answered to the RfC this whole thing should be removed from the article. --Victor12 18:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Any way we could get more editors, or an administrator, involved in this? It's quite clear that the passage should be removed entirely, and it seems that the only way that's going to happen is via escalation. HiramShadraski 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems we are getting nowhere. Maybe we should resort to the Mediation Cabal? --Victor12 19:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mediation Cabal isn't really binding, and kind of depends on all parties being willing to discuss the problem. I don't think that's the case here. I'm going to add a section to the BLP noticeboard. (A few minutes later: done. Also added blpdispute tag to the main article page.) HiramShadraski 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! --Victor12 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No way

This doesn't pass the straight face test. Per WP:BLP, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE, it's outright silly to place alien abduction info in a short article about a former Secretary-General. If he himself were making the claim we could include it in the personal info in his bio, but if we were to repeat everything the fringe community said about public officials there would be no end to it. Wikidemo 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• RfC comment - It has been stated above that Perez de Cuellar has denied meeting with the primary source of the UFO allegation. On that basis, and given that Perez is a living person, I can and do think that inclusion of such content on this page would very likely, in fact almost certainly, qualify for removal on the basis of BLP, on that basis and all the iterations of the same above. Having said that, if Hopkins had his own article, the material could certainly be included there, provided it also said that Cuellar denied the meeting took place. But that is an entirely separate matter from this, in which the subject denies any such meeting took place, and there seems to be no outside evidence that such a meeting ever did take place. This has nothing to do with WP:OWN, but rather with the policy of not including potentially damaging and poorly sourced material in an article. But again, such material probably could be included in an article on Hopkins, provided Cuellar's denial is also included. John Carter 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)