Talk:Charles Veitch

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "He walks around Manchester making videos witnessing interesting stuff such as antisocial behaviour and protests." This is not stated in either one of the provided sources. 148.252.132.92 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done I couldn't find any mention of that either. Nor could I find a fuller description of the tours. The ones noted seemed to be "Walks around cities in northern England, criticizing their poor condition compared to the past." _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This is what you see on his youtube channel. I don't know how we can cite youtube?

https://www.youtube.com/@CharlesVeitch/videos 2001:9E8:34E5:6200:C562:1F4A:7B78:AD (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You can't really. If we're going to describe the videos, it needs to come from a reliable secondary source, or it's original research. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Revert vandalism. An editor has removed "former" from the first sentence before "conspiracy theorist" and added "Far-Right", which obviously doesn't match the sources. 148.252.133.195 (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The same editor has undid this and restored the vandalism, it seems. 148.252.146.56 (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Undone again, and left them a talk-page message. Lectonar (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

193.188.122.197 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

He has actively harassed the owners of a small business after it collapsed including by stalking their home.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The previously added birth date was apparently sourced to one of his videos, but the person who added it never added the source. Nevertheless, this BBC article indicates a birth year of either 1980 or 1981, so perhaps this could be used for the time being? 51.7.196.117 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done UmbyUmbreon (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Two suggestions:

• Remove the "rightwing perspective" as, while arguably true, it's not mentioned in any of the citations. (I imagine it's quite difficult to find an up to date one given his views change quicker than a wind vane.)
• Add "at least" in front of "one child". That source is outdated, and looking at his recent YouTube videos, one can see he's had many children since then. I don't think those videos can actually be cited due to BLP/self-ref concerns, but saying he has "at least one child" seems like a fair compromise and doesn't contradict the source. 80.189.57.159 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Could not find "rightwing perspective." YouTube implications are not reliable sources.

Thanks for your input, CoroneC0rnix-64 (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For full transparency please consider the following.

Change "Charles Torres Veitch is a British YouTuber, and former conspiracy theorist" to "Charles Torres Veitch is a British YouTuber from Brazil, and a former conspiracy theorist"

Also change "In 2012, his girlfriend was fellow activist Silkie Carlo.[4] He has one child." to "In June 2010, Veitch—who described himself as an absurdist filmmaker and part of the "Love Police" movement—was charged with impersonating a peace (police) officer at Toronto airport during the G20 summit period. In 2012, his girlfriend was fellow activist Silkie Carlo.[4] He has one child." 81.109.29.30 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/uk-satirist-charged-with-impersonating-g20-officer/?utm_source=chatgpt.com 81.109.29.30 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: request done with minor changes for clarity.

Thanks for your input, CoroneC0rnix-64 (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Despite giving good reason as to why this revisiton https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Veitch&diff=1338848471&oldid=1338832325 does not violate the policy it's been reverted again by a single use single edit account with no real explanation. Is this valid? GandalfTheGrumpy (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, to a point, though I don't think the paragraph in question meets BLPCRIME because it's a simple statement of fact based on at least one reliable source (I'm not sure of the reliability of "Prolific North"). It is one of more often misinterpreted policies, though, so I'll give the TA the benefit of the doubt for now. If no one else objects here (or even better, supports the change) then it can be reinstated. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If you interpret Veitch as a public figure, WP:BLPPUBLIC states that such incidents must have multiple reliable third party sourcing, otherwise it should be left out. Using the website of Greater Manchester Police is unacceptable, and if 'Prolific North' is the only other source that can be found, then it simply isn't noteworthy by the standards of policy. ~2026-10628-19 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is the website of GMP unacceptable? It is a reliable published source. There is also the Manchester Evening news carrying the report, as well as Prolific North. GandalfTheGrumpy (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

GMP's website is not a third party source in this case.

It's also worth noting that Veitch has been arrested before and none of those are mentioned in this article similarly because there was no conviction. ~2026-10628-19 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The requirement is for a reliable published source. Thats all. The arrest is not what is of relevance - it is the restriction on activities in the city centre that is more relevant to the article I feel. There is nothing in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources that requires a third party source. GandalfTheGrumpy (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe the issue is one of WEIGHT (if we're going to throw around allcaps), wherein if only one secondary source (regardless of notability) is reporting on an issue, it is likely not worth including, especially for crime-related news. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

We have three secondary sources reporting the same news - GMP reporting the charges (which are brought by the CPS). Prolific North and the Manchester evening news, who would have court reporters present for the magistrates hearings. GandalfTheGrumpy (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to . I think that moves us into the realm of "consensus" versus V/N concerns. Currently (and I'm counting Thief-River-Faller who re-added the information) it looks like it is 2:1 in favour of adding, which isn't a huge consensus so it might be worth letting this discussion stand for a few days before making a final call. Primefac (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Apologies yes I should have dropped that link in. There is also https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/charles-veitch-charged-public-order-36664618 but that might jsut be a re-report of the GMP statement.

Regardless though thanks for walking through this with me - Ive not done much editing and it's been interesting working through this to find the right way of coming to whatever decision we do. GandalfTheGrumpy (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The Daily Star has been deprecated, see WP:DAILYSTAR. The GMP website is also still a primary source and it's a big stretch to say it's not.

As stated, I also definitely think this is a case of undue weight. Also, I don't think it's particularly fair to include an editor in a consensus discussion who hasn't even made an input beyond editing the article itself; that opens a whole other can of worms. ~2026-11083-35 (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Arrested and charged are two different things. ©Geni (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a general consensus that the legal issue especially his ability to continue in the city centre should be added. Im not sure what the objections are contrary to it. GandalfTheGrumpy (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Probably time to stop removing for no reason the news that he is banned from manc city centre. ~2026-12279-85 (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)