Talk:C. J. de Mooi

CJ Not C.J.

Please refer to his own site. You don't use those blasted dots as much in Britain thank you very much.

Also: the link in the first reference is totally broken. That's your headache.

This needs references!

Not that it's an important article by any means but still! A model??? I only know one German model [1] Axel Herman but I think we can safely say looking at him that Germany doesn't employ models who look like CJ DM, come on did he write this himself??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.85.232 (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Chess

What or who is "Karpov's De"? Myrvin (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "Karpov's delegate", but I don't know. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Found it - supporters. Myrvin (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

CJ de Mooi's real name?

I know he mentioned his real last name on an episode of eggheads so shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere on this page? JohnnyRed2011 (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)--Johnny Red 14:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Translation of "De Mooi"

Unfortunately, "De Mooi" does not translate to "the beautiful". In order for it to translate to "the beautiful", it would have to be "De Mooie". "De Mooi" as such does not mean anything in combination, even though both words separately translate to the and beautiful. 80.101.33.121 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't mean 'handsome man', either. It's bullshit. Did he write this article himself? BearAllen (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's important, but I've changed it to be a little more accurate. If anyone wants to word it a little better they can. If they know how to use IPA they could also point out he doesn't pronounce it like the Dutch word he claims it to be either. Not even close. BearAllen (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit? I disagree: I strongly doubt that names should be treated quite as literally as is done here. If it isn't strictly grammatically correct (and indeed it doesn't appear to be by todays standards), the man has his etymology straight and I say that's all that counts. Basically, The Van Dale Dutch-English and English-Dutch dictionaries both assert that 'mooi' translates as 'handsome' and vice versa. 'Mooi' also translates as beautiful, so the current text is downright wrong. Whether the declination-'e' should have been added for grammatical correctness is debatable for another reason: "De Mooi" is an actual Dutch surname and "De Mooie" isn't, at least not according to the rather comprehensive Dutch phone book @ http://www.detelefoongids.nl. I for one had no problems at all recognizing the meaning, although in my opinion, the man is not all *that* handsome :P LRataplan (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not, in any way, translate as 'handsome man'. That's what's bullshit, and to have it in the text is just incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 06:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

De Mooi does in fact translate as "the beautiful", not in the same way as de mooie but mooi is still Dutch for beautiful, but rather as a noun: Het is mooi; it is beautiful. De mooi does not in any way translate as "the handsome" indeed. I'll change that. Please note however that De Mooi or often also spelled as De Mooij is not an uncommon family name in the Netherlands. PPP (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

'De Mooi' does not occur as a family name in the Netherlands, however in the antiquated spelling 'De Mooij' it does. Compare http://www.cbgfamilienamen.nl/nfb/detail_naam.php?gba_lcnaam=de%20mooi&gba_naam=de%20Mooi&nfd_naam=Mooi,%20de&operator=eq&taal= and http://www.cbgfamilienamen.nl/nfb/detail_naam.php?nfd_naam=Mooij%2C+de+%28y%29&info=aantal%20en%20verspreiding&operator=eq&taal= (data Dutch Center for Family History)--185.85.220.164 (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm wth LRataplan on this. It seems not just nitpicky, but wrong to suggest that de Mooi should be translated as "the beautiful" rather than "handsome".

http://www.detelefoongids.nl/ currently returns 126 results for "de Mooi" (and 1,175 for "de Mooij") btw. I can't see an obvious reason why this is so different from the results at http://www.cbgfamilienamen.nl/ .

Ml66uk2 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is opinionated, even bitchy

There is far too much conjecture about the whole De Mooi/can he speak dutch business. Both assertions in the introduction are just bitchy conjecture. The handsome/beautiful thing is puerile. Mooi means either. And, as a 19 year old welsh male model, CJ would be more likely to choose beautiful anyway. As a 42 year old tv presenter he's a lot moer likely to say handsome, on air. As to the pronunciation business, one cannot assume that he watches the broadcast show. One cannot assume that his name was accurately conveyed to the announcer. One cannot assume which dialect of dutch he learned. Conjecture.

until there is actual public evidence of CJ communicating with a dutchman or a german, this entire argument is completely irrelevant and would be best struck from the record. I would settle for 'CJ claims to speak german and dutch, though no video evidence exists of his skill.

Plus both assertions are uncited, just jumping down to CJ's CV rather than eggheads episodes. The fact that he lived and worked in germany for 4 1/2 years is verifiable, and one can safely assume that he picked up some, especially with a background in dutch. Owing to the aforementioend lack of citation I can't go and find the episode in which CJ apparently thinks real words are fake. Without context the incident is irrelevant.

Christ. Anyway I would make the changes to the entry myself but I prefer to just opinionate bitchily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.177.211 (talk • contribs)

I'd question whether theres a need for a section on chess. I cant find him on the ECF Grading database and if its true that he was around 170 graded, then while he can play well, he's just a strong amateur. I dont see what chess based qualifications he had to become head of English chess but he's long gone from that post now and as far as I can tell, he didnt really do too much, apart from court controversy at a British Championship prize giving ceremony. Jkmaskell 20:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Deed poll

The BBC claims that de Mooi appeared in court under his "real" name which suggests that he hasn't formally changed his name: does anyone have any evidence other than the autobiography to back up the claim that he has officially changed his name? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This article states he changed his name by deed poll, it is dated 2013. Sport and politics (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to be argued down, but I'm not convinced that's a reliable source - plus I suspect that the anonymous writer is simply repeating what de Mooi told him/her. Having said that, I'm not certain what would constitute a reliable source in this situation ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest comments to Daily Telegraph

The story about him possibly killing a man was always referenced with a Daily Telegraph article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CJ_de_Mooi&diff=next&oldid=679807419

It's odd he now just traces his troubles back to here. William Avery (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a note about this press report, headlined "CJ de Mooi claims arrest warrant issued against him over alleged killing was 'based on bogus Wikipedia entry'". The first mention of the incident in our article came in this edit, which was sourced to this 2015 Telegraph article. Within 16 minutes, the wording was modified here. Another false claim was reverted within 9 minutes here, and further vandalism was also reverted within minutes. The 2015 Telegraph article, headlined "I think I killed a man, says Eggheads' CJ de Mooi", states:

... De Mooi, one of the five regular panellists on the popular BBC quiz show, said he punched a man who approached him with a knife, then threw him into a canal in Amsterdam in 1988. In an extract from his autobiography, he wrote: "He caught me on the wrong day and I just snapped." The 45-year-old former rent boy added: "I fully suspect I killed him. I've no idea what happened to him."

So, the reference in this article came directly from the Telegraph article, which seems to have quoted his own autobiography. The claim in today's Telegraph – that "...a lot of the press and a lot of the police investigation seems to have been because of what somebody else wrote about me on Wikipedia - literally.... It states a lot of personal information about me that is completely wrong - somebody wrote this about me on Wikipedia" – does not seem to bear close scrutiny. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

His autobiography is up on Google Books, and searching it for the quotes included on this page draws a blank. In his account of the incident, he simply talks about beating the man up and pushing him into the canal: there's nothing about "fully suspect[ing] I killed him". It seems likely from this Indy report that the Telegraph took the quotes in question from this Mirror piece – which suggests, although does not explicitly claim, that the words came from when he spoke directly to the Mirror about his autobiography – and misattributed them to the book itself. Basically we've got a piece of recycled tabloid news reporting which appears by WP rules to be nonetheless "well sourced". WP didn't invent the material itself, but it's definitely flawed content. N-HH talk/edits 11:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That's possible. As noted in the thread below, not all of his autobiography is viewable on Google books, so someone would need to check a hard copy. However, you are right to say that it's possible that the Mirror is quoting an interview with him directly (and, debatably, may not be a WP:RS) rather than quoting the book. I'll see if I can tweak the words in the article a little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

All the material removed from the article in these edits yesterday was sourced from reliable published sources (except that the sources use the term "real name" rather than "birth name", which I've now corrected). Per WP:BLP:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

In this case, all the material "challenged or likely to be challenged" that is now in the article is, so far as I can see, "explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, his autobiography says "Andrew Paul: that's the name I was given." and gives his date of birth as 5th November 1969. The reference linking to http://www.demooi.co.uk/cjcv.htm is problematic too. Looks like an expired domain. William Avery (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a hard copy of his autobiography, or the version on Google books linked here? My preview of chapter 4 omits several pages. There may be inconsistencies between the two. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here and Violet Blue immediately sprang to mind. If you look at the talk page of the article, there is a near endless argument about whether this is her birth name. "Real name" is misleading, because a person can change their name legally to Whoop da Whoop if they like, but it would not be the name on their birth certificate. It looks like CJ de Mooi is setting off a similar dispute.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, see World B. Free for a similar case, with a legally changed name. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"Real name" is the term used in his court case, as reported in reliable sources like this. However, the words he uses in his autobiography are: "Andrew Paul: that's the name I was given." It's not clear whether or not that was his full name, or omits the surname. In any event, it seems that no birth name has been published in reliable sources. Just guessing, but it seems likely to me that he changed his legal name at some point from his birth name to Joseph Connagh, and then used de Mooi in his professional career. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I've also suspected possible WP:COI in some of the edits here. Anyone who is involved with the subject of the article should not edit it and make suggestions on the talk page only.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Although per the discussion above the supposed quotes re the Amsterdam incident were sourced and seem to be a media error rather than an outright one by a WP editor, the issues with his real name and DOB are a problem. The claim that he was born Joseph Connagh was added here, without a source, by an IP editor over five years ago. It has been here ever since, albeit the claim was later moved up to the opening sentence, giving the impression it was sourced to the imdb entry. That entry was for a long time the source for a 6 November birth date (it's now unsourced); it does give a purported real name as well, but a different variation again (basically just a fuller spelling out of his current name). Since it also says he was born in the US, and since AFAIK imdb is not considered reliable for this sort of thing, we can basically discount anything in it. He says he was born Andrew Paul, on 5 November, and AFAICT there is no information that contradicts that. The fact that the media picked up and have endlessly repeated the Joseph Connagh/6 November version is, quite possibly, and as so often happens, solely due to that information being on this page for so many years (the authorities may even have relied on it too). Attempts to correct or remove these two claims were frequently reverted by established editors over the years, which makes WP look even worse here I'm afraid. The complaints he has made recently in the media do not look unreasonable overall. The DOB and purported real name should at least be removed; whether they should be replaced with the ones in his autobiography is another matter. N-HH talk/edits 14:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

But what you say is his "purported real name" has been widely reported as his real name, in reliably sourced reports of his court case - here, here, here, etc. Perhaps you missed my edit earlier today here, in which I quite deliberately used the term "real name", not "birth name" - which was an error perpetuated from earlier edits, and to which I assume he and others understandably took exception. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC) PS: Out of interest, see also this - though in a way it only adds to the confusion! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the distinction between "real" and "birth" name as a matter of principle, but in general usage they will usually mean the same thing, and we don't know the media are making or relying on any such fine distinction themselves. As I said, I know they are now using the Joseph Connagh name, but that looks more likely to be one of those cases of circular justification where everyone took a WP fact as true, relied on it, and thus provided retrospective – but invalid – sourcing. Given that he is threatening to sue, and we have no certainty about what his current "real" name or original "birth" name is, I think it's better left out. Obviously this is ultimately more trivial than the Amsterdam quotes, but it does look as if WP is more to blame for this part of it – there WP was basing its content on media reports, here it may have been the other way round. FWIW, in this piece, he is quoted as disputing that Joseph Connagh is his "real [sic] name" and stating it has "never" been his name, ie whether at birth, after a formal, legal change or more informally. N-HH talk/edits 15:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's uncontentious that, in fact, he is also known as Joseph Connagh - irrespective of what his "birth name" or "real name" might be. It's true that this article used to claim (wrongly, it seems) that was his birth name - but, since yesterday, it hasn't. Equally, there is no reason to omit the birth date he gives in his autobiography - a previous version of the article (again, perhaps wrongly) gave it one day different. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That tweak makes it technically accurate, but so arguably would adding in turn "possibly erroneously, thanks to Wikipedia" or "by some people". As I say, and as the subject says, it is contentious, and I'd rather leave any reference to it out until there is verifiable certainty. Putting 5 November as the DOB is fine with me, as it would be odd for anyone to make a fuss over one day unless it was actually about basic accuracy (years are another matter of course, as are former names or IDs, where there can be an incentive to mislead). N-HH talk/edits 15:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

He's known by that name in reliable sources, which is what matters. What was contentious (and wrong) was referring to the name as his birth name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

But even generally reliable sources make mistakes, and we don't have to include everything a reliable source says anyway, even if it is correct. When a likely mistake is identified, it is fine to remove such material. And when a BLP subject is threating to launch legal action due to errors in a WP entry, and cites this particular bit of information among others, it is probably, to say the least, a good idea to remove it. As I noted, he is also denying it was ever his name, whether his birth one or otherwise. I'm not going to revert this, but I think leaving it in is not just unnecessary but a seriously bad idea. N-HH talk/edits 16:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if we accept that the "wrong" name can be traced to an unsourced WP claim, introduced by a one-edit IP editor, which seems likely, your argument is that that error can and should be retained in a BLP – so long as we merely say the subject is now "known as" that – once it has had a bit of repetition in the media. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that flies. N-HH talk/edits 16:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I've asked BabelStone to explain his last edit in more detail - it seems to be based on the full text of the autobiography, which most of us have probably not been able to see. By the way, de Mooi has said that "he was going to be suing the Dutch authorities" - not us. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm conscious his legal action is not necessarily against WP, and only referred to the fact that he was taking it, not against whom (the Telegraph piece specifies the Dutch authorities; the Standard is more vague). But the likely WP errors form part of the context in which he says he's doing it. As for the latest edit, that level of detail is not of course in the BBC source which is still being cited there and it's all getting a bit overcomplicated for a first sentence; plus the addition is a fuller version of the same name rather than an alternative name. The Google preview I've just looked at does bring up the bit in the book where he says CJ stands more fully for Connagh Joseph (I would link that, but I'm never sure how well internal G-book links come out). I think the detail about names would be better set out in the body, with the lead just telling us the basic name he now uses, ie CJ de Mooi. Anyway, I've probably spent too much time on this (I only came here because I saw the news reports of his accusations against WP). N-HH talk/edits 18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This Huffington Post story says that he was "Born Joseph Connagh", but this seems unlikely because UK birth records do not show anyone of that name for 1969 or any other year for that matter. So it's a bit puzzling why Joseph Connagh was described as his "real name" in court. If this was obviously wrong, he could have challenged it. Maybe he has been known by this name at some point, but things are still unclear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There are many sources that say it is his birth name, but they may have got it from this article, which stated it as his birth name from (I believe) 8 August 2011 here, almost without a break, until yesterday. That includes times when the article was apparently edited by the subject himself, for instance here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm worried that there may have been circular reporting over this. Fleet Street journalists confidently proclaimed that Ronnie Hazlehurst had written one of S Club 7's songs on the basis of this edit. I do hope the same thing hasn't happened here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm also wary of using de Mooi's autobiography as a source for his date of birth, given as 5 November 1969. There are some WP:AUTO issues here. People in the showbiz world have been known to tweak their date of birth for various reasons, and some obituaries of Alan Whicker pointed out that he was probably 91 when he died, not 87 as he claimed. CJ de Mooi is turning into a man of mystery, because no-one really seems to know his birth name and date of birth, even in the supposedly reliable sources. It is also worth pointing out that the reason why Judge Khalid Quereshi threw out the European Arrest Warrant in October 2016 was because no UK arrest warrant had been issued. It was not because of a dispute over whether his real name was Joseph Connagh, or because of any criticism of Wikipedia's role in the events.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Birth date discrepancies happen all the time. My personal record, in articles I've edited, is a 27 year discrepancy here, followed by 18 years here. One day is neither here nor there (unless, I guess, you are a numerologist, or an astrologer). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

He's got some real problems here

Please see his autobiography here [2] which looks like a confession of at least manslaughter. I'll try to get a better quote - google books said I looked at that page too many times. Why was I looking for this? From Benedictus, Leo (7 September 2015). "Will Egghead CJ de Mooi regret admitting he might have killed somebody?". The Guardian. Retrieved December 17, 2016. I can copy this quote:

"This is the one incident of my life I do regret,” writes CJ de Mooi, star of the BBC’s Eggheads quiz. “I was in a phone box and this old guy, obviously a massive drug user, came up behind me with a knife in his hand … he told me to turn around, open my bag and give him whatever was inside … I punched him so hard in the face, knocked the knife out of his hand and threw him in the canal. I fully suspect I killed him. I’ve no idea what happened to him."

I was searching for those exact words in his autobiography. I didn't find the exact words, maybe the Google book is a different edition (?), but what I did find cited above is very close in substance. Rough transcription from the Google books link above.

"As the phone rang, there was a tapping on the glass behind me. A withered man, maybe in his fifties, but he could have been much older. … he glanced nervously to each side before pulling a knife. He wearly demanded that give him all my money and anything of value. …. I grabbed the knife, tossed it into the water, and started to thump him. … But my assault continued until I had half-punched, half-pushed him into the canal….. I’m ashamed to say I walked away. I didn’t give this sorry creature another thought." (from the 2016 edition CJ: The Autobiography of CJ de Mooi, CJ de Mooi, John Blake Publishing Ltd, Jan 1, 2016 - Biography & Autobiography - 240 pages)

BTW, our first line says the Joseph Connaught name is erroneous. We don't have a source for that. I see two sources that pretty much say that that is his real name. I'll include them here shortly. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) I've removed the word "erroneously" - it's not supported by the cited source and appears to be original research. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't look "like a confession of at least manslaughter" and this has WP:BLP issues. It is odd that all of this has been set off by something that he wrote in a book. It relates to an alleged incident in 1988 and the Dutch police don't even know for sure if a crime was committed.[3] What may have been intended as an anecdote to liven up the book has had serious consequences.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose we can agree to disagree on the "like a confession of at least manslaughter" but it does look that way to me, and to Leo Benedictus at the Guardian Benedictus, Leo (7 September 2015). "Will Egghead CJ de Mooi regret admitting he might have killed somebody". The Guardian. Retrieved December 17, 2016.. There is the question of why would de Mooi confess this? Benedictus comments on this at length. Sure there are BLP questions here. de Mooi seems to be contradicting himself. He may have written the confession as a publicity stunt, or as a joke (some joke!). But there is no question that he wrote it. He then rewrote it with essentially the same facts and published it after Benedictus's article. His denial or "explanation" of the confession strikes me as being somewhere between "strained" and "erroneous." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External videos
CJ de Mooi on homelessness, 15:49, August 15, 2013
2016, CJ de Mooi, 8:26, December 16, 2016

BTW, I came here based on a news article about his new video (see number 2 at the right). Fortunately I did check things out further, but think that the box on the right could be included in the early life section of the article. Any objections? Smallbones_(smalltalk)

See WP:YT - I doubt if it's a good idea to link it in the article itself, but perhaps it could be added as an external link? It's notable that he makes no mention of the key words that he wrote in his autobiography - "I fully suspect I killed him". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is the words "He caught me on the wrong day and I just snapped... I fully suspect I killed him. I've no idea what happened to him" that most likely caused the Dutch police to want to interview him. It is a lot more serious than pushing a man into a canal, which is what he now seems to be claiming that he actually meant. YouTube videos are not ideal as sources unless absolutely necessary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

References

First I'd like to say that I have some sympathy for the article subject, but that doesn't mean I believe everything he says, or approve of all actions he may have done. The original thing that brought me here was the news article that said he released a video saying that Wikkipedia really messed up this article. In those cases, I general feel that including this is appropriate, per WP:Selfpub (other people might call it the "right of response" by that tends to confuse things.) Text and a ref on the video I came about was already in the article. I think the video itself does a much better job than any text could ever do to show his objections, and help the reader decide whether Wikipedia messed up.

Text from the top video was also included, with the video itself used for the citation (I can find a better citation, but definitely want to include the video as well). This video may well be the more important one, but I have to say that IMHO the story he gives is only completely believable in terms of his subjective passion rather than strict facts (e.g. the dates and ages he gives strike me as improbable or contradictory). The reader should know this by judging for himself. A few quotes can't give the full story.

I've just reviewed WP:YT and the things it links to. I don't think it applies, except for the rule-of-thumb to be careful with this type of material. There is no question that this is *not a copyright infringement*, de Mooi recorded it, uploaded it, has his name on it, and it has been mention and attributed in reliable sources. None of the rules in WP:Elno or WP:ELNEVER apply (yes I double checked all of them). It appears to be the perfect self pub video in terms of those rules.

But yes we do have to be careful. Why are these videos so good? They show the person himself giving his own story about deeply personal issues. If you had a choice between reading our article or just seeing the videos, I'd say - the article is more objective, but the videos give you more of a feel (and much more subjective info) for the real person. But we don't have to choose - we should include both text and the videos. It improves the article greatly.

The question about including it in the body of the article or in the external links section. The template External media has been around forever. It states that it should be used in the body of the article - where you would put the same media if it weren't copyrighted (this goes way, way back). WP:EL specifically mentions this template in footnote 2. We definitely can include the material in the body - does it improve the article? Absolutely, while you're reading the text and wondering "did he really say that?" you can just click the video and see for yourself.

As I said, I like to include these "Wikipedia messed up" videos in the articles. They tell a huge amount about the subject. Please see the one in the article Ice-T if I haven't convinced you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The YouTube video posted by de Mooi seem to be implying that this was Wikipedia's fault. However, reliable sources have reported that he was arrested because of something that he wrote in his autobiography, not because of anything that Wikipedia did. As for the dispute over his birth name/real name/date of birth, this was not the reason why the judge declined the extradition request in October 2016. I've watched the YouTube video that de Mooi posted on 16 December 2016, and at 8:26 minutes it isn't really profitable to ask the reader to watch the whole thing. The key part is here and is what set off the media coverage. He somehow fails to mention the words "This is the one incident of my life I do regret... I was in a phone box and this old guy, obviously a massive drug user, came up behind me with a knife in his hand … he told me to turn around, open my bag and give him whatever was inside … I punched him so hard in the face, knocked the knife out of his hand and threw him in the canal. I fully suspect I killed him. I’ve no idea what happened to him" which have been attributed to him in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing here. The video does show something about the guy that they can't get from reading text. In the end the reader/viewer can believe the article and our sources, or they can believe de Mooi and his passion (for lack of a better word) after looking him straight in the eye on the video. I don't believe that de Mooi is that good of an actor. At some level he believes what he is saying. I have no problem starting the video at 4m37s. I'll come back tomorrow and include it if there aren't further comments. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

How did the arrest warrant saga come about?

CJ: The Autobiography of CJ De Mooi: My Journey From the Streets to the Screens was published on Amazon on 3 September 2015. On 7 September 2015, the Daily Telegraph published I think I killed a man, says Eggheads' CJ de Mooi with the words "He caught me on the wrong day and I just snapped... I fully suspect I killed him. I've no idea what happened to him." Now here's the funny thing. I've just downloaded the full e-book from Amazon and it does not contain these words. It describes the canal incident on page 72 as follows: "I completely snapped, dropped the phone and flew at him in fury... He'd tried, however meekly, to mug me at knifepoint and I was just defending myself. Of course, this is ludicrous as the gentlest of slaps would have got rid of him. Once unarmed, he'd hardly be a threat to anyone else. But my assault continued until I half-punched, half-pushed him into the canal. Trembling with rage and with fists still tightly clenched, I'm ashamed to say I walked away. I didn't give this sorry creature another thought." No mention of "I fully suspect I killed him. I've no idea what happened to him." This leads to an interesting question. Has the text of the e-book been modified since the controversy of September 2015? The media was adamant that the words "I fully suspect I killed him. I've no idea what happened to him." appeared in the autobiography. It did not come from the version of the Wikipedia article prior to 7 September 2015, and was added in this edit with a cite to the Telegraph article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Here is a screenshot of what de Mooi says in the e-book. There is clearly a major discrepancy between what he says here and what he was quoted as saying in the media in September 2015. Wherever the discrepancy came from, it did not come from Wikipedia, which has only reported what the media said about the canal incident at that time. One possibility would be to buy a copy of the hardcover version to see the wording it uses. However, the prices are offputting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Curiously there is a YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCZe_rLHcMg (titled "Egghead CJ Fears he's KILLED a Mugger After Attacking Him When He Was Homeless"), published on 6 Sep 2015 (the day before the Mirror and Telegraph articles were published) which in its associated publishing remarks (not the later comments section - currently blank) has “I punched him so hard in the face, knocked the knife out of his hand and threw him in the canal. I fully suspect I killed him. I’ve no idea what happened to him.” Greenshed (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Going round in circles

The talk page now has multiple sections about the same issues, where people are just repeating what has already been discussed. The points about the discrepancies in the quotes and his "real" name being an error, and the relationship between content here and media reports, were all discussed only yesterday in the sections immediately above, and more or less clarified. I and others have already gone to the trouble of tracing the history of some of the additions to the article and seeing whether WP original research or the media seem to be the source for claims about the Amsterdam incident and his real name. Just to repeat them myself, albeit in bullet points:

• The quotes about possible "killing" appear to come from a Mirror article about the autobiograpy, not the book itself, where he simply refers to pushing the man into a canal. They were then repeated by other, broadsheet media and ended up being included here. So they were sourced, but possibly not to the highest standard.
• The "Joseph Connagh" name was added to this page by a one-edit IP editor five years ago, with no source. It is quite possible that the only reason we now have media citing this name is because of that WP content. He has explicitly denied it was ever his name.
• We also for a long time had a probably wrong birth date here, based originally on a dodgy imdb entry.

The subject has complained about all three things, and appears to be blaming WP for the errors. He may well be right about that in some respects, if not entirely. Again, any information that is contentious needs to be removed from this page, and that includes the claim about his real name. This is basic BLP stuff. N-HH talk/edits 10:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it is still a puzzle how the media got hold of the words "I fully suspect I killed him. I’ve no idea what happened to him." They appear in news media stories from 7 September 2015, eg here in The Guardian, but they definitely did not come from Wikipedia prior to that date. As for his birth name/birth date/real name, this is still open to question due to the possibility of circular reporting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Per this post yesterday, and as noted above, they seem to have come from a Mirror piece, which may or may not have been a separate interview with him to promote the book – or they could be tabloid invention. The paper is a bit coy about their provenance; other papers picking up the story then just seem to have assumed they came from the book, and as you say we are in the traditional realm of circular (mis)reporting. I'd put money on WP being the source of the name error; but even if there is doubt either way, that's enough for us to avoid it. The birth date I'd accept his version; as also noted yesterday, there's no reason to lie surely over one day, in the way that there is for years. N-HH talk/edits 11:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The Mirror (at least in its current version of the 2015 article - here) does not state that the published autobiography itself contained the words "I fully suspect I killed him. I’ve no idea what happened to him." The words are quoted in the article, but it seems clear from other parts of the article that he was interviewed by the newspaper about the autobiography (e.g. Referring to the pain of writing his autobiography, CJ said: “A lot of it made me very upset and angry.). It is the other press sources, including those that we would regard as reliable sources, that claimed - apparently wrongly - that the words were in the autobiography, and our article took it from them. Regarding his name - yes, it was wrong for this article to have claimed that Joseph Connagh was his birth name. But the fact that many sources report it as his "real name" - even if it may not be either his birth name or his current legal name - means in my view that we are absolutely justified in using a phrase like "also known as...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time that a British tabloid newspaper had invented quotes, but there is such a major discrepancy here that this is the area that needs to be cleared up. The Mirror piece on 7 September 2015 may have been what set all of this off; if so, Emma Pietras is the person to ask about the words used. Alternatively, CJ de Mooi may have thought that this was a good way to promote the book in an interview, and subsequently realised that it wasn't.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

But at what point does our pursuit of the "truth" become "original research"? We should report - accurately - what others have reported, not question whether the reporting itself was accurate or caused confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, maybe someone has misreported what de Mooi said, but this gets into WP:OR. Various major media organisations, including BBC News and The Guardian, have reported that de Mooi used the words "I fully suspect I killed him. I've no idea what happened to him." in his autobiography. Maybe they were guilty of circular reporting. However, it wasn't Wikipedia that coined these words.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, prima facie, we should accept serious news sources and what they say – and shouldn't be excluding what they say based on our own guesswork and opinion – but that's an assumption of policy, not a permanent and unbending seal of approval for everything in them. We don't have to include everything in them even if true, and beyond that there comes a point in situations like this, where specific and documentable issues of credibility and veracity have come up, where saying "but they're generally RS" is not enough. We can leave this out without harm; including it has obvious problems, even as tweaked. As yesterday, re the name, I do dispute the logic in the last sentence of a comment that's now a couple above. To pick up the Hazlehurst analogy, that would mean we would be OK with saying "he was also credited as the writer of ..", without qualification or explanation, on the basis it was technically true and sourced, because of the original WP misinformation. Even with the semantic tweak of "known as", it's misleading. As for the Mirror and the quotes, we of course can't be clear how the paper got those words. As noted, invention is one possiblity and something that has happened before; or they may be real, from a separate interview, but regretted. They're not in the article currently, and are probably best left out. All in all this is a cautionary tale about relying on even highbrow media sources, which are often sloppy and do simply repeat/rewrite what they've read in tabloids or on WP. N-HH talk/edits 11:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

We all seem to be heading roughly in the same direction. But, I still don't agree either that we know for sure that WP was the source of the "Joseph Connagh" name, or that it is "misleading" to state that it is a name by which he is "also known". In any case, I've now set up Joseph Connagh as a redirect to this article as it is clearly (I hope) a plausible search term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying we know for sure either, but am betting it's pretty likely. Either way there's a huge element of doubt as to the veracity and origin of the claim, and I don't think we get round it by that tweak, or even that we need it at all in the very first sentence anyway. Simply having some detail in the body that this is one name he has used or been referred to by – and that he has denied this one is correct – would seem better. There's no need to include every alias or alleged name right from the outset, even if we are 100% sure they are right, which of course we can't be here. Regardless of semantics of phrasing, or citing of RS policy, it seems we're just doubling down on a probable error in a BLP, and one that was likely to have been down to WP in the first place. You and I can disagree about this, but I suspect if this went to the BLP noticeboard, removal would end up being suggested, on the basis of caution if nothing else. N-HH talk/edits 12:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested to get a wider input from people who habitually discuss these matters there, and I'll happily accept any consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Speaking in general and not just this article: If there is a reasonable doubt about anything a newspaper said, it should be deleted wholesale. Reliable sources sometimes conflict or simply get it wrong, and lord knows, the Mirror has made a career out of it. If there is doubt, simply do not include that part. It is better for any Wikipedia article to be incomplete than to spread disinformation. This is particularly true when talking about living persons. We are not obligated to include everything they print. We are obligated to err on the safe side when it comes to BLP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror is not the worst British tabloid, but it is beginning to look as though this saga was caused by other sources picking up on what it said. Looking back at the history of the Wikipedia article, no-one knowingly added material with poor sourcing, but some users may have been confused by other more reliable sources which were saying the same thing as the Mirror.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CJ de Mooi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629141939/http://bhaconference.org.uk/ to http://bhaconference.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

HIV / AIDS

Tho he has apparently said that he has been living with AIDS since the 80s, this is to all intents and purposes impossible. No-one with what is the end stage of an HIV infection (known as AIDS) competes and finishes marathons. HIV, tho, is treatable with daily medication, thankfully, and there are plenty of people leading full lives who have survived since the 80s. Clearly, CJ is one of those. He may well be very ill now, clearly he has had a whole heap of serious issues to deal with. I wish him well. Boscaswell talk 02:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a problem with using a tweet as a source. He probably means that he has been HIV+ since the 1980s.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)