Talk:Aric Sigman

Addition of false information
Please stop putting false information on this page Ilovestirfry (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The Contoversy Section
The controversy section has repeatedly been toned down, with key information being removed by the user Billiesss (who doesn't exist anymore). I suspect that this user was Aric Sigman himself. Consequently, this section need to be re-written with key information re-added.

I've reverted it to a previous state, and then added more detail. If anyone else should like to add more detail, that would be much appreciated. Apparently j (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Controversy sections are sometimes unavoidable, but are almost always a bad idea. This is especially problematic in articles on living people. To comply with Biographies of living persons (BLP), all such information needs to be directly supported by reliable sources. Do not combine sources (per WP:SYNTH) and do not add original research. Anything which is controversial should indicate to readers what is being "controverted", who is controverting it, and why. See WP:FRINGE as well. Do not use blogs for BLP articles. WP:PRIMARY sources should be restricted to info which is uncontroversial and obviously basic (name and year of school attendance or similar fundamental information), or as a very brief clarification of a contested detail supported by a reliable, independent source. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * A controversy section for this page is much like the controversy section on Andrew Wakefield - he has published verifiably false information. The main reason I'm contributing to this article is because he gave a talk which I attended. There is unfortunately very minimal information about Aric online, despite him regularly giving talks to schools using unfounded material. The most reliable source is the statement given by the NHS, followed by the blogs by Ben Goldacre - which were the only citations before I added more. In regards to the Original Research tag, this information from Dr Ben Goldare, which I then properly cited. Short of getting a review of Aric's articles published in a Journal, which I may do if I have the time, there really is not much that directly talks about what Aric has to say. Apparently j (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources can be either online or offline, as long as they are verifiable (which almost always means published). Andrew Wakefield's fringe claims have been very well-documented and debunked. Sources like that can be used to provide context without having to rely on Wikipedia editors to do it themselves. I admit I know very little about Sigman. If this person is not discussed by reliable, independent sources, it might be worth looking at Notability (academics) to see if this article should be deleted. Blogs are not used to determine notability, and opinion columns are almost as useless.
 * Regardless, sources are not optional. Any interpretation of primary sources needs to come from secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)