Talk:Marek Kukula

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 14 October 2024, see discussion.
keep, 27 May 2021, see discussion.

	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
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted on 2 September 2009 by reviewer Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs).

Arrested?

I know that we can't cite The Sun or the Daily Mail, but I am concerned that someone with such a public position in astrophysics has recently been arrested for holding several hundred pictures of child pornography. I don't know how best to proceed and would appreciate help.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6887460/dr-marek-kukula-astronomer-doctor-who-book-child-abuse-images/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6002381/Greenwich-Observatorys-Public-Astronomer-downloaded-407-child-porn-images.html Jesswade88 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesswade88: The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:BLPCRIME; from which "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.". The context for "relatively unknown people" is given as WP:WELLKNOWN, which in turn says (emphasis in original): "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.". That said, in this case there is a guilty plea and a suspended prison sentence - so there should be more sources, - and not the barren results I am finding when I search. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proper weight for this, however, is much shorter than in the most recently reverted version. One sentence would suffice; "in 2018, Kukula pled guilty to possession of indecent images and received a suspended sentence of 21 weeks." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would still need an actual source for such a claim and The Sun and the Daily Mail are not options. If we don't have any actual reliable sources, even primary ones, that discuss the crime, then we can't even presume that it happened. Since those two sources, as noted, are deprecated and unreliable for facts. Silver seren^C 22:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion that has been underway for several days now at WP:RSN that pertains to this matter. There were also several other discussions in other venues, but I have closed those down per WP:FORUMSHOP in the interest of keeping the discussion all in one locale. Otherwise, I have no particular opinions on the matter. --Jayron 32 15:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source regarding arrest and conviction

It looks like a lot of the discussions regarding The Daily Mail and The Sun have died down. I did some digging and I found that a law firm maintains a list of individuals who have been convicted of sex crimes. The introduction to the page says that the database is a list of individuals who have been convicted of a variety of offences either directly against the person or, indirectly, in respect of inappropriate behaviour, including sexual and physical assault. They are convicted offenders. The database is transparent about being compiled from media reports.

In the case of Marek Kukula, the particular citation linked is that from The Sun, though the use of the report by a legal group (when combined with the preface that they are convicted offenders seems to lead credence to the reporting in this very specific instance. The alternative would be that this legal group is either negligently saying (or intentionally lying) on its website about somebody being convicted of an offense, which seems to be... unlikely at most.

I'm wondering what you all think about this; inclusion seems to me to be WP:V-compliant, though I want to see what others think. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would regard that report as a self-published source. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since they freely admit that they are relying on The Sun. We are still left with the basic fact that nobody other than the The Daily Mail and The Sun has reported this. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am uneasy about leaving out such a conviction from a biography. I tried to search court records using thelawpagescom but unfortunately could not get the search to go back to 2018 even when logged in. However, The Sun and Mail reports read essentially identically and were published on the same day so both appear to derive from a court report. There are specific details about the court and the judge, defence lawyer, and prosecutor (all real people), and photographs of Kukula outside the court in The Sun taken by a freelance journalist who does court reporting. If this were fabricated then a press complaint would have been made. IBB Law also considers the details to be correct or they would not have included the case in their list - and they are presumably quite aware of libel law! This is not gossip or sensationalism. WP:DEPRECATED says "The source may only be used when there is a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources" and "Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia". There is a demonstrable need to use these sources and excluding this information harms Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 13:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the opposite. This is a WP:BLP; we have to be far more circumspect in our selection of material and sources when dealing with living people. BLPs are the last place we should relax the restrictions on suspect newspapers, not the first. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. I suspect that if any of us is ever accused of a sex crime, we would want Wikipedia to require better sources than The Daily Mail and The Sun.

Re: "IBB Law also considers the details to be correct or they would not have included the case in their list", if a WP:SPS reporting that source A made claim B is to be considered evidence that claim B is true, we should start using Wikipedia as a source.

Re: The Sun and The Daily Mail using the same wording, we have caught The Daily Mail plagiarizing something published by another source and publishing it under a new byline (usually with a couple of fabricated additional details to make it better clickbait) as if it was original work. They usually do this within minutes of the original being published.

The Daily Mail doesn't send reporters to courtrooms and have them write down what people say. Instead they make all of that up (creating guilty and not-guilty versions) long before it happens so they can publish a lengthy article on the verdict containing exact quotes of those involved reacting to the verdict a fraction of a second after the judge reads it. Or they just make the whole thing up. Or they plagiarize another tabloid that made the whole thing up. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By similar logic, haven't we caught the New York Times for spinning up a conspiracy theory that there are watermelons on Mars? It's not an uncommon practice for portions of stories to be written ahead of time, filler quotes to be added in the draft, and for things to be reworked once information comes out, as far as I know. Holding accidental publication (and subsequent retraction) against a source seems to be a bit of a stretch. (This is assuming it's related to the Amanda Knox verdict publishing error). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a test page for holding actions until the real article is put into place and published. The person in charge of making the test page, rather than doing the usual Lorem ipsum content, decided to have some fun with it. But that's why it was an accident when it was publicly published, as it's meant to be just a placeholder. That isn't at all the same as a publication like the Daily Mail that knowingly and purposefully publishes false information to create controversy and increase views and ad revenue. Silver seren^C 23:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of non-tabloid sourcing, there has been a robust concensus in previous discussions to exclude this information from the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After looking a little more, it appears that the 2019 affirming RfC 2019 affirming RfC concludes in its close that Some editors suggested that the previous RfC [the 2017 RfC] needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case (emphasis added). My reading of this is that, if the existence of the conviction is non-controversial, then The Daily Mail would be an acceptable source for it. Are we sure that we want to leave it out? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP issues alone are almost always "controversial" information that deprecated sources wouldn't be allowed for. Let alone something like a crime that is only being claimed by tabloids. There could literally be no subject that would count as more controversial than something like this. Very much not what that exception is referring to. Silver seren^C 03:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot trust anything if it is only found in The Daily Mail

In the section above, there is discussion of "non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else". Note that arbcom never said that such things actually exist, just that "some editors suggested" that they exist and noted what policies would apply if those editors were right.

That being said, There is no such thing as a non-controversial fact which was reported in The Daily Mail and nowhere else. It simply does not exist. If it was reported in The Daily Mail and nowhere else we have no idea whether it is a fact or a fabrication. They do print things that are true, but you never know which ones unless they are also found elsewhere.

There is a basic problem with The Daily Mail that is systemic and affects everything they do without exception. They are willing to lie about anything and it is completely impossible to tell the lies from the truth without checking with another source.

Unlike other tabloids, The Daily Mail always chooses whatever behavior maximizes profit. This keeps fooling Wikipedia editors who try to read the tea leaves and predict areas where they are reliable. There aren't any.

You may think that, say, they are reliable for football scores. You may even have checked and found that they have never lied about a football score. But, alas, you were only able to check football scores that were also reported elsewhere. It is impossible to confirm the accuracy of a football score which was reported in The Daily Mail and nowhere else.

If publishing accurate football scores maximizes profit, The Daily Mail will publish accurate football scores. If they ever decide that telling lies about whether Wigan Athletic F.C. won last week will be profitable they will tell lies about whether Wigan Athletic F.C. won last week.

If publishing articles that appeal to Conservative and Unionist Party members maximizes profit, The Daily Mail will do that. If they ever decide that suddenly switching to supporting the Liberal Democrats will maximize profit, they will start doing that instead.

If publishing retractions and corrections makes money, The Daily Mail will publish retractions and corrections. If publishing retractions and corrections loses money, they will stop publishing retractions and corrections.

If telling lies about celebrities brings in more money than they lose through fines and lawsuits, The Daily Mail will tell lies about celebrities. If telling lies about celebrities starts costing them more in lawsuits than they make in increased circulation, they will see that they are losing money on the deal and stop telling lies about celebrities.

Note that The Daily Mail does whatever maximizes profit, not whatever maximizes readership or makes the readers happy, although those things often overlap. If they ever decide that offending 90% of their readers will maximize profit, they will happily offend 90% of their readers.

Because of this basic truth, trying to decide in what areas The Daily Mail will decide that being reliable will turn a profit is a fool's errand. You are holding yourself hostage to their judgement as to what will maximize profit, and assuming that just because so far telling the truth about who won a football match last week was profitable, it will necessarily remain profitable. The Daily Mail is not to be trusted in any area, even areas where they have a history of being reliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the editor demanding inclusion

To whomever the person is, jumping from blocked account to new accounts swiftly blocked, making demands on talk pages: why are you wasting so much energy here, when you could put your tenacious crusading spirit to better effect by lobbying The Guardian, BBC, and The Independent to demand that they publish the information? Hound them until they publish! Because as soon as one of those sources addresses the information, Wikipedia can include it in the article. Get to it. Schazjmd (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, these accounts appear to be sockpuppets operating in relation to the Daily Mail that are now using this article subject as part of their effort to contest the deprecation of the Daily Mail as a source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wallyfromdilbert, you mean they're not really passionate about protecting the children? How disappointing... Schazjmd (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guy behind them is usually known as "Crows Nest", which was the name he went under on the Wikipedia Sucks forum. He has been at this since at least 2017. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am gathering information on the sockpuppeteer to pass on to a legitimate journalist I have been in contact with. If anyone has any evidence that the sockpuppeteer has a COI and is funded by a tabloid that rhymes with "Maily Dale" -- or if you want to tell me anything else that you wouldn't want to be made public -- please email me with it at [ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Guy_Macon ]. I will never reveal the emails or who emailed me unless you specifically ask me to do so.

BTW, if The Daily Mail really wants to protect children, maybe they shouldn't sexual 14-year-old children.[1][2] Or a 13 year old.[3]

Here is how The Daily Mail described Kylie Jenner (16 years old) and Kendell Jenner (14 years old):[4][5]

"Teen bikini queens"
"Dancing suggestively in skimpy bikinis"
"Sexually charged"
"Wearing very short wetsuits"

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crow is a fantasist and a pathological liar, you can't take any of his claims that he is being paid by anyone seriously, and you risk embarassing yourself if you do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, this person thrives on attention. If a journalist were to write an article about them, that may lead people to believe that they have had an impact on Wikipedia. Not only would that be incorrect, it would be counterproductive to our efforts to make them go away. – bradv🍁 00:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]