This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bedfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bedfordshire 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.BedfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject BedfordshireTemplate:WikiProject BedfordshireBedfordshire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
"How wikipedia continues to silence free speech and truth"... erm, no. Free speech means it doesn't have to be reported on, and wikipedia policy is that when reported on it should be reported on accurately. Thus if it were to be more extensively covered, the facts seem in disagreement with your choice of words. Given we have court evidence the claims are defamatory, with the media referenced here being in contempt of court, there is no major need to draw attention to it bar simple acknowledgement. If Stephen had wanted to change the record on that, he had every opportunity to follow the legal process - for reasons only known to him, he decided not to do so. Thus the facts state the "documentary" is not truth, and thus is not suitable to really be covered. Garfie489 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia continues to use far right whenever a handful of journalist are quoted in using the term. This is wrong and not charitable in the slightest. 195.252.198.209 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content is sourced, and it is a description very widely used - we don't need to cite every such instance it has been applied. Wikipedia doesn't base content on what random contributors say is 'wrong', and we aren't here to give preferential treatment to convicted criminals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, if we did cite every time the description was used in a reliably reported way - the page would become mostly references and entirely unusable. Garfie489 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
