Talk:Stan Romanek

New page
New page with new content as of 2/13/2012. Since he's been in the news lately, is speaking regularly at conferences, has three books out now, and is working on a film, it seemed reasonable to start a wiki article. Rjmail (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Tabloid "news", conferences for nuts and idiots like him and books full of crap. Yes, he is very notable! Let's write an article on Wikipedia about this greedy asshole!187.13.65.114 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not notable to me too. (And his name is just 313000 Google results only.) --Love Krittaya (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Since he's been on national news more than once, and published several books, I think he meets the requirements for an article.  I don't think whether someone considers him nutty or an idiot or greedy should override that.  And I think it's good he does have an article, since many of his claims are controversial, and without a wikipedia article, people would only be exposed to one side of those claims. Rjmail (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I found this wikipedia page very useful. When I searched on Google and found a plethora of biased sources it was useful to see a well written wikipedia page that covered the controversial nature of his claims. As for notability, the number of things circulating about this guy is certainly prompting people like myself to come searching for a more independent source. Lukekfreeman (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Happy Halloween to snowmen of all dimensions.Magonian (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

February arrest
Information on Romanek's arrest on suspicioun of possession and distribution of child pornography, while confirmed by reliable sources, may be a BLP violation, since he is innocent until proven guilty. It may be better to wait for the trial results before adding information on this. Rjmail (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is noteworthy, it is a fact that he has been arrested and charged with the crime of owning and distributing child pornography. Removing that information only serves to mislead people who might think his fraudulent claims are valid. What does that make you? A protector of frauds, liars and accused child pornography users, that's what it makes you. Username540 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears you are new to wikipedia Username540. Welcome. I recommend you review the 5 pillars of wikipedia, which are the principles upon which wikipedia operates. Included in there are the concept of neutrality, of treating each other with respect and civility, not engaging in personal attacks, acting in good faith, and assuming good faith on the part of others. Consider that I am acting in good faith to that of neutrality, and of the guidelines surrounding the Biographies of Living Persons. - WP:BPL. Notice I did not remove any content, but brought my concern to the talk page, as is also mentioned in the five pillars. When the result of his trial is made public (by a reliable source), that will certainly be included in his page. I hope you find your time on wikipedia productive, enjoyable, and educational. Rjmail (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Enough with the false equivlance
The "controversy" here is not a public one. In fact, there is "no controversy." The consensus in the press clearly reflect the lack of a real public interest in this, a public that has easily dismissed Romanek's hoax. The same public that put together a jury of his peers has found this man guilty. We are treating Romanek's blogs and opinions in the press as a source itself, and we can't do that in the voice of wikipedia.The only controversy, so far, is in Romanek's head. And the consensus in the press is treating this as just another conman and sex offender. Perhaps among his small fan base, he is a big celebrity. The reality is that Romanek is relatively an unknown and even among the UFO subculture a blip on their radar. The crimes and cons of Romanek seem to be the only real interest in the press, and all his claims have been summarily debunked, with Romanek confessing to it (albeit dishonestly and in a self-serving manner).

Again, ALL of Romanek's allegations of being framed or misrepresented are without evidence, being presented by him as fact, and are themselves slander against other living people. ENOUGH! If we are to present his side, then we do so WIHOUT a false equivalence. A radical claim or accusation against another WITHOUT EVIDENCE needs to be stated as such. Just because Romanek says it, doesn't give it immunity from a WP:UNDUE violation. And given the serious of his crimes and cult-like behavior, a "single sentence" can do a lot of damage to "reputable" people who have (rightfully) challenged this conman. File an AE about it if you like and see how far you get trying to defend this child porn criminal who is currently on a sex offender's list.2601:282:8300:B761:4C9C:A320:F25E:4027 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC) P.S. So this doesn't become a case of WIKI:LAWYERING, please refer to the common sense advice by Wikipedia founder about flat-earthers. There he points out that even though we can use wikipedia rules and decorum as cover for a flat-earther to make his claims and to bolster HIS SIDE about the (false) possibility about there being a flat Earth, we clearly DONT do that since it is common sense and widely-accepted that flat earth theory is false. Likewise, Romanek is a clearly a conman and a convicted criminal. We don't have to give undue weight to his allegations that the government has framed him, or his idiotic rebuttals. If we do mention it as part of the history of his confidence game, then we label it as such OR at least point out that his allegations are made without evidence -- this, so the reader doesn't get confused and think there could be something to it (ergo, like the false evidence presented by flat earthers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8300:B761:4C9C:A320:F25E:4027 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing the issue here. I think the word 'controversy' was used being used here to step wide of any potential BLP issues. Certainly there is no controversy in his recent conviction. But when it comes to talk shows and paranormal groups and that kind of thing, it's harder to assign the same weight in fact, imho. And you can, in fact, treat a person's personal statements as a reliable source WP:SELFSOURCE. It doesn't mean the content is being presented as fact, just that the person said it, which I take to assume usually means it is their opinion.


 * Also I didn't read any of the original edits as anyone defending Romanek. In fact, I thought the thing about him changing his stance from some medical issue to instead saying someone instead set him up just further reveals of his modus operandi and further damages his credibility. In any case, since the source is reliable, and I think fits, so I'd vote to leave it in. The changes you made in the last edit I don't have much of an issue with, I think it's a reasonable compromise.  But again I think saying his claim is unreliable or an opinion is already assumed. Also beware that 'alleged' (and claimed) is defined by wikipedia as words to watch WP:WEASEL, WP:ALLEGED, and it's why I personally like just saying 'said'.Rjmail (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Citation Banner
User Rp2006 added a banner saying:
 * This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

I see 32 citations, which seems a good amount for this size of an article (though that doesn't say anything about their relevance). Is there a specific section here that needs work? Rjmail (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I added it to call attention to the ten citation needed flags on material scattered through the article. It was either do this, or delete all this unsubstantiated text. RobP (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all the citation issues for which you added the banner. Please review and remove the banner if you agree. Rjmail (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Admitted Faking
There is some contention over what should be allowed when discussing Romanek's admitted faking on the Peter Slatterly show. Either a short blurb:
 * After he was caught faking, Romanek initially denied he had faked evidence and then later apologized, alleging a government conspiracy coerced him into confessing and incriminating himself

Or a longer blurb with more details:
 * Romanek apologized, and said he had been anonymously instructed via a January 2014 phone call to discredit himself in this way. If he did, his child pornography charges could be made to disappear. If he did not, or if he told anyone about these instructions, his friends and family would be harmed or killed. Romanek has not provided evidence to support these threats.

If I understand the issue, the contention seems to be about the sourcing of details. I feel that the source is allowed, since [WP:BLPSELFPUB] notes: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites." Since the content is video of an interview with Romanek (in which he is obviously complicit), I believe it falls either under him publishing this content in the press (if you see Slaterlly in the category of press) or on Slatterly's personal web site (if you don't). Any thoughts? Rjmail (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely OMIT this information where including it would unduly legitimize it. Even Slatterly's credentials are dubious. He's a freelance amateur paranormal enthusiast. The interview is nothing more than a home video of Romanek on his couch whining with delusional excuses about being framed for his child porn addiction.73.95.168.132 (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the text I am wanting to add should be deleted until there is consensus (since it is contentious, and this is a BLP, etc). I also agree that not every extraordinary claim need be presented in wikipedia. Since the counter argument to this text is no longer primarily an issue of source (even if it were a home video, self publishing is allowed if the material is about the subject), but rather False Balance, I'll focus on that.

The summary of Romanek's statements is probably, as WP:FALSEBALANCE discusses, a minority opinion. But it is not about some general fact out there in the world, which is the focus of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The content summarized here is said by the subject, said about the subject, and reveal his reason for the section being an issue in the first place. And though his statements could be seen to negatively affect the subject's reputation, I think we are using proper care, since it is after all the subject saying them in a relevant place in a relevant section. But unless more people agree with this reasoning, I'll leave the article as it is. Rjmail (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)