A fact from Peter W. Smith appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 July 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
(ec) I have been kind of expecting something like this, although I rather expected it would be added to the article by anonymous users, not by long-established editors. And I thought it would be coming from dark corners of the internet, not from a congressman. (I see that Congressman Lieu has a reputation as a tireless Twitter troll. Not my word - the Washington Post's and the LA Times's.[1]) But no, I am not going to restore this. No, it does not belong in the article. No, I am not going to add it to the DYK. Not only because I strongly object to publicizing this kind of conspiracy stuff, and find it particularly offensive about a recently deceased person, but because it has not been picked up by multiple reliable sources - just the Daily Caller (which call it "baseless suspicions") and the Washington Free Beacon {"a conspiracy theory without evidence"). --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero opinion whatsoever about this matter. But isn't a congressman's opinion more valuable than ours (nobodies)? I don't see anything wrong with adding this content as long as we contextualize it properly as per RS. In fact, it seems odd to stray from those reliable third-party sources by failing to mention it.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. A single tweet from one congressman, who already has a reputation as a loose cannon, and for which the only coverage is to ridicule it, does not belong in this article. (I note that the sources that did report on this "baseless," "no evidence" "suspicion" are conservative in orientation; my hunch is they are probably publicizing it only because it makes a Democrat look bad.) If it gets covered by multiple mainstream reliable sources, we will have to add it, but not with the degree of coverage it has now. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
