Talk:Oliver DeMille/Archive 1

Permission

I have received permission from Dr. Demille to use the bio found at http://www.gwc.edu/faculty_odemille.asp. I am reposting the article, along with sending the e-mail granting permission to permissions-en [at] wikimedia [dot] org Firemeboy 01:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received further permission from Dr. Demille that released his text under the gpl license. Firemeboy 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive vandalism

A new editor, "Gruntsmith", recently made massive deletions to the article with no prior discussion here at the talk page. Please bring up any issues here before deleting large chunks of the article. Thanks. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of "Diploma DeMille" article

This article was written by Richard Stout, an attorney in Idaho, in response to a charter school setting itself up based on DeMille's philosophies. It was an unsolicited article written for the Idaho State Department of Education with the aim of educating them on the "Thomas Jefferson Education" concepts and giving the author's opinion on DeMille's claims and background. Someone else posted the article at www.idaholeadershipacademy.org as part of the movement to shut the charter school down, so it's not self-published. That's pretty much what I know about it. Yes, I did use it as a source for this article, but nothing I added is libelous or a violation of WP:BLA. --TrustTruth (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this http://www.amazon.com/review/R1X8G9LCRZBCGF/ref=cm_aya_cmt?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0967124611#wasThisHelpful by Richard Stout who says that he is in Wilmington, Delaware. It is essentially a condensed version of the larger article. The "Diploma DeMille" article referenced is not OR as the website owner is Scott F Nelson, a former employee of Idaho Leadership Academy (Aug 06 - Jan 08) according to his letter to the Idaho State Charter School Commission that is here: http://www.idaholeadershipacademy.org/CharterReport.htm The Stout article itself reads as defamation of a Mormon, not an expose of a misguided educator. The periodical referenced as an additional source for this article is rather elusive - as in I can't find it - and would appreciate a link to it if you have one. The umi.org site was down though and perhaps it is there. 2ewrap (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article does seem to have WP:RS issues though. 2ewrap (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User DGG has deleted the Diploma DeMille article even after I provided a reference to its publication in a third-party journal. It is not self published. It is not original research. Although the journal does not have a web presence (and the sponsoring organization is now defunct), that is no reason by itself to call it unreliable. The publication was active for many years in Utah. As another editor has demonstrated, Stout is a Delaware resident. Let's actually discuss this here before wholesale deleting the information. Thanks. --TrustTruth (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - The link I posted above to an Amazon Customer Review is no longer a valid link. Amazon removed the review because it did not adhere to company policy. 2ewrap (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

The item by Stout is unequivocally unacceptable by our WP:BLP policy, and even by our ordinary WP:RS guidelines. Self published material on a web site cannot be used for negative or controversial BLP. I have removed it, and everything sourced only by it. This is something we do not compromise about, and I warn against restoration of the material. The information can be readded only if found in an acceptable source. DGG (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not self-published material. Can you explain using another basis why referencing that article is unacceptable? --TrustTruth (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a separate reference for where Diploma DeMille was published in a periodical. --TrustTruth (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the source of the periodical, the article is still suspect under WP:RS. 2ewrap (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what about the periodical makes the article suspect? --TrustTruth (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is published by a group with a strong POV against this and similar organisations,[1] There is no way a source like that will ever be acceptable for sourcing negative material in a BLP. Additional material here that you have re-added amounts to WP:Original research, trying to find inconsistencies in the various biographical accounts and use it against him. This too is unacceptable. When a reliable non-partisan source will have published it, we can include a reference to their account. I have removed it. I warned you about this. If you readd the material without prior consensus here you will be blocked from editing. DGG (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a BLP, but could weigh in on the use of this type of source at Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement? --TrustTruth (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article reorgnization, OR removal

I just re-organized the article into three main sections: education, professional life, and publications/teachings. I also removed quite a bit material that may be considered OR, as well as the timeline table at the end of the article (which was based on the Diploma DeMille article). I added zero content through these edits. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is to a point that the OR tag can be removed. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]