Talk:Durek Verrett

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 25 August 2021 by reviewer Sahaib3005 (talk · contribs).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Spirituality Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Conviction[edit]

Convicted of what? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has said that he, in his late teenage years, organized a party in an abandoned house that was set on fire, and "the whole house caught fire,"[1] so it appears to be trespassing and arson. --Sveinkros (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should be in the article rather than leaving us to speculate. Or the whole item should go. What is sourced? Saying that he has had a conviction, without saying of what reeks of tabloid journalism. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I get from the source in German seems like incoherent rambling. It is also his own story, thus far from reliable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Durek or David?[edit]

The article lists Verrett's birth name as "Derek" in the lede, while the infobox claims he was born "Durek". According to the info later in the article, "Derek" is the correct birth name. Anyway, it's a small inconsistency that should be easy to fix.KaldeFakta68 (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murderer[edit]

And he wants to be the future King of Norway, by killing the Crown Prince Haakon and his wife Mette-Marit! 46.249.227.166 (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? This is a serious allegation that you really should back up with evidence. Solbu (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is only the 4rth heir to the throne so he need to get rid of a few more to be king. 2A01:799:175D:A200:C4F1:A63B:FC73:4233 (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather a serious WP:BLP violation here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if she was The Queen. He claim Durek WANTS to kill the current Crown Prince and Crown Princess in order to become King.

That needs to be backed up with evidence. Solbu (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First black person to become part of ...?[edit]

"Verrett has claimed that he will become the first black person who becomes a part of a European royal family[57] (ignoring Princess Angela of Liechtenstein)." What about Meghan Duchess of Sussex? 84.148.158.210 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't seen her referred to as a black person, have we? Her father in white. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, NPOV?[edit]

This seems uniformly negative and it may violate BLP & NPOV policies. It has been referred to the BLP noticeboard. Dgndenver (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not obliged to change the reputation of a living person to make it better or worse than what reliable sources enable us to report. A person with a very well-sourced bad reputation is just that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead may need some reworking, but the actual article body seems fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some needless info sourced to blogs ("royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com") and other self-published sources per WP:BLPSPS. Please stick to high quality, reliable sources. We don't need life stories of parents and relatives, even if verifiable. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If you look into earlier edits, there were pointers to live demonstrations and positive movements and activities he'd been a part of.

If you look at the edits, it looks like a blatant smear and tear-down. ElFartillo (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously long article[edit]

Can't this man be described in short comprehensive paragraphs instead of all the excessive detail? Makes him look much more notable than he actually is. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatant tear-down / smear.[edit]

Just looking at the history of edits is enough.

Compare the original article with what this mess is and the direction is overt.

"American Conspiracy Theorist" as the title you've bestowed here says it all.

Regardless of how contentious you believe his Shaman titles to be, he has demonstrated ability and gift beyond what the 'CHOPSKY' can explain. This was provide as evidence through linked media that was once posted in this wikipedia article, and clearly taken down to fit an agenda.

Google any of his shows on The Doctors, Netflix specials, or Good Morning in the UK. He demonstrates gifts that show shamanic ability.

There are countless public articles from notable publications of people documenting their experiences with him. And a range too.

This Wikipedia article simply reads as a highlight reel of all the tabloid trash repeated about him. And edits removing anything showing what he does as positive, like The Mandela Mile or the charity work he was undertaking before he became sick again (kidney failure recovery the last two years).

No surprise that a dark-skinned, bi-sexual person would get so much abuse from small-minded keyboard warriors. I wonder how many have Norwegian names, IP addresses or emails?

I recommend this article be deleted.

It seems whomever is behind a blatant smear campaign is going to be relentless in abusing this page and seeks to pour all their energy to spreading this trash.

Can't imagine what it's doing to the mental health of the guy to see all this crap, and the quality of wikipedia as an information resource. ElFartillo (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The television shows you noted are self-promotional entertainment pieces, so those aren't appropriate sources for Wikipedia. The subject of this article has created a public persona for himself, and repeated stories about his life, which key members of his own family including his mother, aunts, and former boyfriends have stated are fake. I would suggest those fake stories are the trash being spread on social media and elsewhere, not the fact-based content with reliable sources found on Wikipedia. JimminyOzland7 (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not self promotional. Self promotion would imply self-authored or approved editorial. These are shows who have him on as a guest. They edit and control the content. He is on their show and subject to scrutiny, even if gentle.

Tabloid garbage / family members who probably want money and hurt lovers are not credible as they have emotional and financial stakes. Come on. Let’s not be naive.

This is a dance we’ve seen a thousand times before where the famous folks are torn down. Brittney Spears’ family and their BS. The British Royals and the insanity around them.

The only credible sources are evidence and track record. There are countless journalistic pieces in numerous well-respected publications - The UK Times, Vanity Fair… - discussing sessions with him and his TV demonstrations are not entertainment by the definition you seem to be positing. If you mean some of the Netflix shows, sure.

He has credible testimonials from a range of people as well. Some on his website, including Dave Asprey of Bulletproof. 2600:1700:A600:FB80:58C9:8E1D:3942:5572 (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Talk shows like "The Doctors," which was a fully-scripted PR vehicle, could never be considered a legitimate source for anything. It was canceled due to garbage content and promoting fake products with no evidence to support their validity.

As for your disregard of statements by the subject's family members -- their statements on the subject's legitimacy and truthfulness are quite relevant since the subject has based his public persona on being a source of authenticity. Further, the family members' statements are supported by verifiable facts, such as comparing the subject's own publications and interviews with US court records, census records, birth / marriage / death records, and so on, all of which also appear as sources in this Wikipedia.

Lastly, just because a "legitimate" publication like Vanity Fair might repeat someone's personal propaganda in an article doesn't mean it's supported by facts. It's understandable that fans of public figures don't like facts sometimes, especially when the facts don't match up with their idol's PR campaigns. But Wikipedia isn't a place for PR and propping up fake personas, it's a place for facts. JimminyOzland7 (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are sufficient reliable sources under this article, and deletion is out of the question since the man jas been prominent in reliable sources due to his relationship with the princess. No censorship on Wikipedia! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]