Talk:Guy Standing (economist)

Can we change the caption to that?, It will be very beneficial for everyone. IanisMD (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

No. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

What about "Standing sitting Guy sitting Guy Standing sitting at the BIEN Congress in 2012"? Lallint 18:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No. We aren't going to make any memes about his name. This has been discussed to death in the archives. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I know we already had an edit war about this, but "Standing at the BIEN Congress in 2012" kind of makes it sound like it means "[Here he is] standing at the BIEN Congress in 2012", rather than the intended "[Guy] Standing at the BIEN Congress in 2012". I think we should change the caption to "Guy Standing at the BIEN Congress in 2012", to clarify. --ISometimesEatBananas (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed in 2023. While I apparently supported it then I'm leaning against it now. We normally refer to people only by surname. We should hold fast against the tide of memes (so to speak) and follow exactly the same rules here as we would for someone with a different name. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Why not just “Standing, at the BIEN Congress in 2012” 2600:1004:B052:27BF:6820:D19B:6C6C:F931 (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the best solution ~2026-14614-42 (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, it looks very güd :) ~2026-14946-91 (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree; it's an unclear caption without the comma MasterSpider451 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe this would be a good compromise. Unfortunately, I do not have the permission to make that edit. SuperminerJG (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the flood of temporary accounts and a user whose sole edit is to this talk page, there's no consensus to change the caption here. The image was already changed from the cropped version and "Standing in 2012" expanded to the caption we have today. This is a neutral state that most people can live with. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

i have a solution... ~2026-32140-00 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be good to change the photo of Guy Standing to one where he is actually standing up. Primarily to erase any possible confusion (which ISometimesEatBananas originally discussed), and also to dissuade possible memers as well.

Also a more recent photo would be preferable too. Darius Leong (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Guy standing sitting discourse in the big 2024 💔 207.174.167.81 (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Replacing the photo has been discussed before, but the problem is finding a better photo. Having a newer photo, if one is found that is suitable for use, is a good idea. Wilh3lm^Talk 13:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Or it could say “him (Guy standing is implied but not written) sitting at…” in the caption, it removes the issue of confusion which is present with “Standing at…” which could be easily confused for “(person)Standing(possibly capitalised only because it’s the first word) at…” and wouldn’t have the issues of “Guy Standing sitting at…” or “Standing sitting at…”

would you say this works? Legendarycool (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I found a picture of him on his site (https://www.guystanding.com/) where he is standing, would that work? --ISometimesEatBananas (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It would need to be released under a free license. And anyway I oppose making any changes to the photo. The right thing to do is to not care at all about this memery and use exactly the same image, with exactly the same caption, as we would for any other person. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the caption “Standing at the BIEN Congress in 2012” should be replaced with “him sitting at the BIEN Congress in 2012” as it mitigates may of the issues, if there are any reliable source of the previous hilarity the article could have a section on the name’s comedy. Legendarycool (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It took years of arguing on this talk page just to get the uncropped photo back. I am opposed to anything that might jeopardize the consensus finally established. We have a good photo with a neutral and informative caption, which also shows Standing's continual involvement with the BIEN Conference more than two decades after its founding. If it isn't broken, don't fix it! Editorial time would be better spent expanding and improving the article rather than just trying to force the meme. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you are say, but confusion is created with the use of Standing as a name while he is sitting wouldn’t “him sitting at the BIEN Congress in 2012” avoid the issue of both the meme and the unclear description in the caption? Wouldn’t the continued use of his name in the caption be considered an attempt at comedy too?

I am just trying to get a completely neutral caption that would remove the need for any conflict. Legendarycool (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "him standing" is grammatical in that use. And on the topic of images, there's a second image in the article that depicts him standing, why can't we make that the thumbnail and remove the current thumbnail image all together? ...in fact, there's one more image of him standing in Wikimedia Commons, we could use that as well. But it doesn't look very good as a thumbnail. Meanwhile, to Trainsandotherthings as well as Pppery, if we don't address this this is going to pop up again. Additionally, the article is protected because of this argument, which stops people from making good image-unrelated edits like I was going to do. --ISometimesEatBananas (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussions: Talk:Guy Standing (economist)/Archive 1#Why can’t we make the joke, Talk:Guy Standing (economist)/Archive 1#Extended confirm protection too much?, Talk:Guy Standing (economist)/Archive 2#Picture. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Making jokes about a subject's name violates WP:BLP – same goes for people like Kevin Lasagna. If the subject was deceased you might have a better chance but as it stands, it probably won't happen DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say changing the caption to ‘him’ instead of ‘Standing’ as it could considered an attempt at a joke so using him or them instead would work better.

Legendarycool (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, referring to Standing by a pronoun in a caption feels very awkward, and contradicts the usual style for naming people in the captions, which is by surname. I haven't been able to find any info in MOS about this but the surname would easily be the preferred style if his surname was anything else. Wilh3lm^Talk 19:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there an actual consensus against this? The linked discussions (which constitute nearly the entirety of the talk page's archives) mostly seem to be a combination of the following:

• Discussions where some random noob requests the edit, and they are told "no", and someone links to previous discussions.
• The previous discussions themselves, which for the most part are closed as "no consensus".

I get that there is a bias against this, because we are a very serious website and the Internet is serious business and it is maximally important to never write anything that is incidentally funny to anybody ever, but I really don't see a basis for awkwardly contorting our standard practices to avoid humor. Typically, photos are described by captions. The only reason we don't do that here is because... there's some meme on the Internet where people think this caption is amusing? We've been reverting it for five years for the sole purpose of annoying them?

Some people will say it is immature to have a funny thing in an encyclopedia; I say it is immature to go out of our way to imperiously remove encyclopedic content because people think it is funny. We have articles on flatulence, exploding whales, killing baby Hitler, Festivus and inherently funny word; it is not unencyclopedic for us to do so. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a role-playing website where we compete to see who can act the most serious.

Unless there is strenuous objection to the contrary, I propose that the caption be restored and we get on with our lives. jp×g🗯️ 07:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Or how about we don't make fun of somebody's name just because people on the internet find it amusing? A person claiming to be his wife (I find the claim credible, given that the account & their interest in Standing is much older than the meme and the article) has stated that they find it somewhat annoying & specifically requested that we use a different photo. I don't mind writing articles that are more than a little tongue in cheek; I also think saying that the only reason we're not making a elementary school-esque joke is to annoy people is not an accurate read of history.

Also, we do not always describe a person's pose in captions. We normally say their name, the date, and optionally the location/event. This article's captions are relatively normal; we have not contorted ourselves. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 09:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Since when do we take into account the subject of an article’s opinion on the content? ~2026-14805-20 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Well said on all points.

There is absolutely no harm in allowing the caption.

Anyone who opposes it, please indicate any actual harm or negative effect that would arise from allowing "Guy Standing sitting".

Even Guy Standing himself doesn't really care, and just thinks it's a bit basic.

To my knowledge, there is no good argument against it.

The site has no rule against humour, and while it is very uncommon, it does exist (see "cetaceans needed" and Pillar 5).

I have yet to see single a good against it, but several for it. It is an accurate description, and more accurate than the current caption. One may argue that it's non-standard to reference the pose of the subject of a photo, but it is not unheard of, and there have already been several non-standard actions taken here.

The only reason this article has any significant traffic is because of that caption. Now, more people know about Standing and, potentially, other related topics. As I can attest from my own experience, such levity can help one's retention of knowledge, and interest in the subject.

As far as his alleged wife's request, I believe it is far more harmful to heed it. If we scede to the request of one party relevant to an article, what about the next time a relevant party requests an edit? And the next? And the next after that?

The desires of those with connection to the subject of an article are irrelevant to the content of the article, and that is vital to maintain the site's neutrality (see Pillar 2). Neutrality is a deeply important feature of this website, and vital to its operation.

There is no good reason not to allow it.

Let "Standing sitting" lie. Bavarian Banshee (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Ever since WP:BLPSTYLE was written, if I had to guess. What exactly does it say about Wikipedia as a source of information to be joking about a real living person's name and arguing for so long about it? KodiCraft4 (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Check out this recent Youtube video on the "Guy Standing sitting" controversy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A48oR4Zc9ik At nearly 32 minutes, the creator "Tor's Cabinet of Curiosities" documents the controversy in detail. Plenty of info exists on it yet I can find no mention of it on this page for Guy Standing itself nor by a search for "guy standing sitting" (no quotes) in the Wikipedia search field apart from a reference to it within a reference in the "List of 'Reply All' episodes". and wouldn't you say there are many articles or (sub-)sections of articles devoted to less and/or more obscure information on Wikipedia? If so then why isn't there a (sub-)section for this controversy on any page on Wikipedia? ~2026-15849-67 (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Is "Tor's Cabinet of Curiosities" a reliable source? I would think not. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you watch the video? ~2026-15849-67 (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Does it matter? The WP:BURDEN is on those seeking inclusion of content. Nobody doing so has pointed to a reliable source discussing the controversy. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This very page has a "mentioned by multiple media organizations" section, all of which explicitly talk about the controversy. If they are reliable enough to be pointed to by wikipedia, would they not be reliable enough to cite? ~2026-18496-93 (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m personally a huge fan of the show and it’s the reason I know about it, but I wouldn’t consider it to be a sufficiently reliable source for Wikipedia. That said, I’m about to open a discussion re whether or not the controversy should be mentioned in the article. - coolgurl5555 ✈︎ (she/her) ✈︎ 23:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC) (edit: just saw the most recent discussion and won’t be opening a new topic) - coolgurl5555 ✈︎ (she/her) ✈︎ 23:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

For your consideration, I have uploaded a new photo here: File:Guy Standing at Panteion University (2022).png. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 02:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I am fine if it's included either in the infobox or a bit below. It's a useful img I think, a more recent one at least. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 02:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of using a more recent photo, as it would be a more accurate representation of what Standing looks like today than a photo from 2012. Also it will hopefully bring an end to the petty squabbling over the caption. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 21:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

A YouTube screenshot? Are we sure it's free? Nurken (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the licensing info at the bottom specifies the CC BY license. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

While the photo is more recent, and will also end the "Guy Standing sitting" debacle, I think the old image looks better. In particular, I find the lighting of the new one worse. Wilh3lm^Talk 16:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

If enough people have concerns about the technical quality of the new image, I am fine with reverting to the prior one. My personal opinion is that it is high quality enough for its goal of visually representing the subject. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guy_Standing_at_Occupy_Washington_DC_2011.jpg How about this image? He's standing here N51 DELTA TALK 17:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that image should be used in the article, regardless of if it's placed in the infobox or not. It showcases his beliefs about the precariat and gives a nice contrast from all the photos of him at conferences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that could work lower in the body. Wilh3lm^Talk 00:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Need to add a section or sub on legal action Standing took against an American media outlet (I think the NY Post) for false light reportage. The case was thrown out because a NY state civil court ruled that Standing did not have standing.~2026-18243-99 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Any sources for your claim? Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 18:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

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

I think it is a good idea to add a section on his Wikipedia page about the image with the caption "Guy Standing sitting" and the major controversy that surrounded it, as it is what got him a lot of attention. References shouldn't be too hard to find, for example the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guy_Standing_(economist) Swsrqurk (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you would like something to be added to the article, please provide the exact text of your proposed addition. Day Creature (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

not sure why it says 'standing' when bro is clearly sitting ~2026-24371-42 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

In the caption "Standing" refers to the person's surname, not the physical act of standing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Pppery I’ve changed the caption slightly to try and avoid this issue. (Which was mentioned weeks ago by another user above). Electricmemory (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Electricmemory, I think that you should continue discussion about changing the caption seriously in the above thread. This thread is just the latest iteration of an overused joke. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 18:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Even if it is a joke, a changed caption would avoid said joke being repeated. I’ll take a deeper look later, I spent about 4 seconds on this Electricmemory (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Changing the caption won't do anything. The image showing him Standing would fix this like it does for Guy Standing (actor). Jq talk 💬 contributions 04:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Guy is not standing, hence it is more confusing than if you just included the slightly humorous but correct statement “Guy Standing (sitting)” ~2026-25189-84 (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Very funny. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 11:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

A reader will not come to Standing's page to hear about a decade-old debate. A reader who wants to learn about disputes on Wikipedia will go to List of Wikipedia controversies. Specifically, a section about the debate can go in List of Wikipedia controversies#2015. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 18:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay then, be bold and move the section. 1timeuse75 (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure! I've made the change. Didn't want to start an edit war which is why I went to the talk page first. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 11:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review

Passed. —TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Guy Standing (economist)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 1timeuse75 (talk · contribs) 11:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 06:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Guy... Standing!? B-b-but... he's... Okay, jokes aside, I was not expecting a good article nomination for him. Good on you for driving this article to improvement! —TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 06:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula Okay! see you in 3 months. (joke) 1timeuse75 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@1timeuse75: Three months? Try three days. (Done.) —TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, happy Fourth of July! Almost forgot to mention that. Now for fireworks! :D —TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula Well, you've proven my dumb joke was wrong. I think this makes it the fasted GA I've done? Please check the comments below if they're to your liking. Also, I don't celebrate Fourth of July, sorry. 1timeuse75 (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Also your "Overall assessment" reminds me of this meme 1timeuse75 (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Well done! Everything seems to be order. I guess this Guy has already taken his Stand. Okay, no more puns... —TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:07, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor copyedits were done to improve readability. Other than that, I spotted and corrected any typos, making the prose is clear and concise.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead summarizes main information. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. No words from the WTW list have been spotted in the article. Fiction and list incorporation policies do not apply.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article has two reference sections (one for primary sources and another for secondary sources), and no bare URLs have been spotted.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article pulls multiple reliable secondary sources, including ABC News, The Guardian, and Financial Times and aptly cite direct quotations. Primary sources are used correctly to cite Standing's career progression.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecking proves there is no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Although Earwig lists the top result at 49.7% similarity, most of the reported material comes from primary information (including Standing's job positions).
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Ample information on Standing's life, career, and views are provided.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays on topic, and during my readthrough, I did not sense it going into unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article simply reports viewpoints without taking their side and has used direct quotations with attribution whenever necessary.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable. No edit wars have occurred recently.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Every image is freely licensed and tagged with the appropriate CC-BY license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Of course, who could forget the iconic photo of Guy Standing sitting? It's front and center. Also, the audio recording is a big plus in any given biography on Wikipedia, and the two other images add vivid visual aids to explain Standing's career.
	7. Overall assessment.	"Guy Standing, I'd like you to meet Dude Person. Standing, Person. Person, Standing."

Close

Initial comments

• The nominator is the main editor with 57.8% authorship.
• Earwig's top result reports a 49.7% similarity. However, this originates from Standing's official résumé, which cites his job positions and accreditations. This seems to be the same case for the second topmost source with a 40.1% similarity.
• No prior nominations have been made, so no extra underlying issues are present.

Lead

• "Standing created the term precariat to describe an emerging class of workers..." - Should the word "precariat" be in quotation marks? I vaguely remember that being a stylistic preference, but I'm not too sure.
  • Added quotation marks Fixed
• Concise summary. Felt like I needed everything I needed to know just by reading this section.

Life and career

• This section is a bit longer than others in the article, but I can't think of a good place to split it. My first idea would have been to split this section into "Early life" and "Early career"; that cannot be done because of a lack of information on his early life.
  • The article actually used to have "Early life" and "Career" sections, but was removed by another editor per MOS:OVERSECTION
• "in its modern form" - What does "modern form" mean here?
  • I've made this more clear Fixed
• "...he has worked in Professorial Research Associate, SOAS, University of London." - The way I'm reading it makes me say it should be "worked as". You can leave this unchanged if it's a convention I don't seem to get.
  • I've changed it to "worked as" Fixed
• "In 2020, Standing collaborated with the English band Massive Attack for their EP Eutopia." - Hmm... this could be a great DYK hook. Just saying.
  • Oh! You have no idea what I've got planed for DYK!!!

Views

• "Standing calls on politicians..." - "calls" or "calls on"?
  • I think "calls on" is correct, but I've changed it to "calls for" to make it more clear.
• Why is the number of pounds in quotation marks? I feel like it would give the effect of scare-quoting text.
  • Removed
• The acronym for universal basic income is introduced in "Life and career", yet it is used nowhere else. Also, is it supposed to be in sentence case?
  • I've added UBI to the rest of the article (excluding links).

Membership and honours

• Why use acronyms when they are not used later in the article?
  • I originally kept them because of the Infobox. I've removed the acronyms anyway.
• I would suggest merging this to the "Life and career" section, but it is already long enough.
  • Doing quick look at BLP economist articles, this type of section is the standard.

Bibliography

• Aren't bibliographies supposed to be arranged alphabetically?
  • Nope, see MOS:BIBLIO

Spotchecking

• (will check all 35 secondary sources and all 8 primary sources) Since I'm out of time, I'll check sources that cite direct quotes so as to check for source-text integrity. - Permalink for reference.
• #5: Y
• #25: Y (AGF)
• #27: Y
• #29: Y
• #30: Y
• All primary sources correctly verify information.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guy Standing

• ... that Guy Standing (pictured) coined the term precariat to describe an emerging class of workers who are harmed by low wages and poor job security as a consequence of globalization?

• • ALT1: ... that in 2012, Guy Standing (pictured) predicted that if politicians don't have basic income then there would be a rise of far right parties? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20120210095527/http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3426520.htm and https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/01/voice-for-emerging-precariat
  • ALT2: ... that this photo of British economist Guy Standing (pictured) caused an editing war on Wikipedia? Source: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/188-into-the-depths/id941907967?i=1000565759879
  • ALT3: ... that this is a photograph (pictured) of Guy Standing sitting? Source: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/188-into-the-depths/id941907967?i=1000565759879
  • ALT4: ... that a British labour economist (pictured) helped make an EP? Source: https://www.nme.com/news/music/massive-attack-tease-new-eutopia-ep-with-mysterious-instagram-posts-2704269
  • ALT5: ... that if Guy Standing (pictured) made love to a woman, that would be a "misunderstanding"? Source: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/188-into-the-depths/id941907967?i=1000565759879
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Louis Alexander MacKay
  • Comment: The hooks are In order of seriousness.

1timeuse75 (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC).

Overall: What an honour to review this icon of an article! Every item on the checklist is good to me. I only raised my eyebrow at the Earwig copyvio score, but as pointed out in the GA review that is from a primary source that lists seemingly very basic facts about the subject. I would have loved to approve Alt2 or Alt3, but only Alt0 and Alt4 seem to actually be mentioned in the article, and I suppose Alt0 is best suited to intrigue those who know him only from the "Standing sitting" debacle. I assume there is a consensus against mentioning that latter bit in the article (even though it is probably a non negligable contributing factor to Standing's notoriety...but anyhow). I guess you still have the opportunity to do something very funny with the caption... though I can't imagine the eventual promoter of this hook will be pleased. Procrastineur (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Procrastineur49: Well technically, the "Standing sitting debate" IS mentioned in the article, (see the See also section). And technically, per WP:DYKHOOK it only says to have a citation in the article "that are used to support the hook fact" but not to include the actual fact itself! Anyways, I might be wrong about this. I just don't want Alt2 or Alt3 to go to waste. Thanks for reviewing this DYK! 1timeuse75 (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@1timeuse75: Aha, then I've misunderstood the guidelines. In that case I'll take that podcast to be a reliable source and I'll approve Alt3. Procrastineur (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@1timeuse75 and Procrastineur49: Unfortunately, WP:DYKCRIT does require that the hook be explicitly mentioned in the article, with a source immediately after it. (Per WP:DYKPOL: "The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear.") A mere see also link is not going to be sufficient. The DYKHOOK guideline does say that the citation should support the hook fact in some form, but that wording is to prevent reviewers from being overly strict (i.e. requiring that the citation in question be the one that's located directly after the hook fact). This does not affect ALT0 or ALT4, which are still good to go per Procrastineur's review. Epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

In that case, please forgive us DYK rookies for our confusion. I'll fall back to my initial review, Alt0 it is.Procrastineur (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius and Procrastineur49: Nope! I've now added the info to article! 1timeuse75 (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@1timeuse75: Thanks for doing that. I'll let Procrastineur49 handle the rest of the review (haven't looked at the article beyond this), but ALT2/3 seems to meet that aspect of DYKCRIT now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@1timeuse75 and Epicgenius: Ok, final verdict then, hopefully! Alt3 is good to go.Procrastineur (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)