Talk:Malik Stanley

October Altercation with internet streamer

It seems certain people really want to get a laugh out of the recent kerfuffle in Tokyo, but that isn't an excuse for poorly written, unsourced and editorialized additions to this article. If someone wants to take a swing at a NPOV addition that's well sourced, go nuts. This isn't the place to get in clever jabs, no matter how much the subject may deserve it. 2601:19B:4303:3650:B578:38D6:FC17:8B4C (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Malik needs an ego check if that video is bothering him. ~2026-15665-53 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

"unsourced"?? it's literally caught on video. (Redacted) ~2026-15723-24 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

If a reliable source covers the incident, it can be added to the page. Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, especially on biographies of living persons. Wikipedia's policies require that editors immediately remove any contentious content on this page that doesn't cite a reliable source. To count, the source cannot be a primary source, and it can't be user-generated or self-published content. Reddit and Instagram are both considered unreliable sources on Wikipedia. Cadddr (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/s/KdOVNhR0aT

Link to the interaction. ~2026-15701-30 (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, this video is a primary source, and Reddit posts are not reliable sources. See WP:RSREDDIT. Cadddr (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

reliable sources like rolling stone, pink news, spiegel. all famous for hoaxes and fake news scandals. has to be reported by one of those. ~2026-15723-24 (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

no reliable sources needed when you can just watch the video. ~2026-14222-39 (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. To do our own interpretation of the video, which is a primary source, would be original research. If a reliable source covers the incident, we can include it on Wikipedia. Until then, we can't. This rule is particularly strict in articles about living people (see WP:BLPPRIMARY).

"No original research" (NOR) has its origins in the "neutral point of view" (NPOV) policy and the problem of dealing with undue weight and fringe theories. The core policy of Wikipedia, NPOV, is meant to provide a framework whereby editors with diverse, often conflicting, even opposing points of view can collaborate on the creation of an encyclopedia. It does so through the principle that while it is often hard for people to agree as to what is the truth, it is much easier for people to agree as to what they and others believe to be the truth. Therefore, Wikipedia does not use "truth" as a criterion for inclusion. Instead, it aims to account for different, notable views of the truth. — Wikipedia:Core content policies § History (emphasis added)

Cadddr (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Your own eyes aren't a legitimate source. Videos that don't fit the liberal & bipoc agenda are banned as sources on wikipedia. ~2026-15806-53 (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

You sir, are the definition of being stupid. A primary source is the BEST source on Earth, since it is directly linked to the incident. A person caught in a video by who was there at moment can't be challenged by your biased nuts brainless media NOR YOU. Just refrain yourself from internet. ~2026-16629-52 (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not talking about my own personal opinion. I'm just explaining Wikipedia's policies. Cadddr (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "certain people" ~2026-76961-4 (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Since this incident appears to have gone viral again on social media, I'd like to welcome potential editors to Wikipedia and encourage them to read Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people, as these articles are especially subject to the standards of verifiability and original research that apply to all articles. Thank you. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder regarding BLP and sourcing policies. At the moment there do not appear to be any reliable secondary sources covering the incident. The event itself is widely documented through the original livestream clip and subsequent reposts, but these would not meet Wikipedia’s reliable sourcing standards for a biography of a living person.

Given that, it may be reasonable to leave the statement marked with until a reliable source (for example a news or sports publication) covers the event. If such coverage emerges, it could then be cited appropriately to verify the material.

ThemeParkGuy24 (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, per WP:BLPRS, contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion, and Such material should not be added to an article when the only available sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Improperly sourced material has especially no place in BLPs. If an incident is covered by reliable sources, it may be added only then. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

That's right. No content without WP:RS, and that goes about double for derogatory BLP content. JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:ONUS. It's not "on us". It's on you. JFHJr (㊟) 02:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

And WP:BURDEN. Cadddr (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Except when it's derogatory statements concerning republicans ~2026-76961-4 (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Anon, point me to where I might get to revert Reddit-sourced BLP content on any spectrum of politics in any country, and I'll probably oblige. JFHJr (㊟) 03:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Most any BLPN or RSN volunteer will do the same. See WP:RSNP. JFHJr (㊟) 03:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Perfect. Can you remove the Personal Life section then please? It’s unsourced. ThemeParkGuy24 (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep this same energy for the rest of the article. "On the football team, he was playing on offense and defense in his final two years." is unsourced. There's a reason why people are attempting to change this page, because it is ridiculous that perhaps the ONLY thing this person is known for beyond irrelevant EU football leagues is that livestreaming incident. If this is purely for his indoor football league statistics or his EU stats, it should be deleted for irrelevance. The league he played in lasted from 2021-2025, and was shut down due to atrocious attendance. 1 (one) honorable mention for college all-conference teams is not notable. This is not a notable person only considering football. He is notable considering the streaming incident. It's the first thing that shows up on google when searching his name. A biographic page not including the main thing the individual is known for beyond a niche, which is undeniably confirmed to have occurred, on the basis that the source is too tabloid-y, is absurd. ~2026-29247-49 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

India Times (Times of India) as a source

Is this considered a reliable source? https://poprant.indiatimes.com/trending/who-is-malik-stanley-viral-tokyo-livestream-clip-shows-munich-ravens-wr-confronting-italian-streamer-lucakingm-after-mistaking-amiga-for-slur/articleshow/129533139.html ~2026-15676-59 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

For acceptable uses of India Times (Times of India), see RSNP and an RSN RFC that disfavor using the entertainment, advertorials, and AI-generated pieces from this source. Looks like entertainment "news" to me. JFHJr (㊟) 00:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Is MSN entertainment news?

https://www.msn.com/en-in/entertainment/news/who-is-malik-stanley-viral-tokyo-livestream-clip-shows-munich-ravens-wr-confronting-italian-streamer-lucakingm-after-mistaking-amiga-for-slur/ar-AA1YwItI ~2026-15676-59 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

As JFHJr noted below, MSN is a news aggregator, and that article is republished from Indiatimes. Please see WP:USEORIGINALSOURCE. Cadddr (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Normally it goes without saying that the same applies to WP:MIRROR sites. But it apparently needs saying here: WP:USEORIGINALSOURCE. JFHJr (㊟) 03:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)