Talk:Vox Day/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rearranged the Intro

Any writer who is published is an author. So I corrected that in his intro. Also anyone who knows how hard writing is, even for the gifted, knows that it should be listed first in a series of vocations (or avocations). So sorry, but I have put 'author' first and let his other vocations follow as they rightly should.

Claims about Castalia House

I removed the unsourced claims (forgot to login first) regarding Castalia House being related to another company. This is a BLP, and such, comments on a blog post are not acceptable sources. The blogpost would be acceptable for uncontroversial background information, but never for claims of note; user contributed comments are never acceptable as a Wikipedia source. Kennedy Trengove (talk)

Early Life Reversion

I effectively reverted the change to early life which I believe made the intro not NPOV. Background information like ancestry is acceptable to sourced for self-published blog posts written by BLP. There is nothing controversial about a person self-identifying their background. If there is a source that Beales background into question we should link to that and change it. Kennedy Trengove (talk)

Pic courtesy subject

Vox Day has kindly released a promo photo as GFDL for this entry. Cheers! - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section removed

I removed the controversies section added by Tim Long as it is unsourced and in violation of the WP:BLP. According to several Wikipedia admins, WorldNetDaily is not deemed a reliable source. The question is not one of truth, but of significance. Until the information can be sourced from a reliable third-party publication, the material cannot be included. Xday 09:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You are grossly distorting the ruling on WorldNetDaily as a reliable source. The ruling on its validity as a source for information does not apply to information provided ABOUT the publication and it's published columnists. I guess you think it's a big joke to keep making this argument, since you are bitter about the decision to reject WND as a source, but that doesn't mean that a joke is a valid basis for an editorial policy. Also, are you sure that you aren't Theodore Beale? If so, note that you are not supposed to be tinkering with your own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.206.11 (talk • contribs) on 5 September 2007.

I reverted the wholesale edit made by an anonymous author on 4th July, which removed large chunks of info including the Vox Day pseudonym and the recent Holocaust controversy. Most of the information edited out is based on material from the authors own website, and is hardly controversial. Bregence 03:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the information relating to the pseudonymous activity to the Vox Day article, as per the Wikipedia custom. Added information from Billboard magaine. Also removed misplaced subjective adjectives, the article was controversial but the blog is just a blog. Much of that material from the author's website is outdated according to the blog. Added information about Malkin controversy and provided links to the articles.Kaym 10:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you point us to where in Beale's blog it states that the eternalwarriors.com website is outdated? I wasn't aware he had acknowledged this. Similar info is repeated on Amazon.com as well. I reverted the edit re the lawsuit. According to an SEC 10-Q filing for Infogrames, the lawsuit was settled in October 2000 (i.e. after 1999 when Fenris Wolf apparently closed) for a nominal amount after claims from both parties were dismissed by the Supreme Court of New York. The original statement was accurate but perhaps there is still a better way to state this. Bregence 17:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

He makes the case at this blog entry that he wishes the Vox Day pseudonym to remain unconnected to his real identity. I removed the information based on this.--24.21.254.55 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

However, in 1996 on a newsgroup he connected his Vox Day pseudonym to his real identity himself. As such, it seems unwise to restrict access to information after the individual has publicly released it only to regret that decision 11 years later. The article should remain as it was originally written.

Agreed. People are not supposed to edit or exercise editorial decisions on their own articles. Not including a discussion of Vox Day the columnist and blogger on the basis of Beale not wanting anyone to know his pen name years after he connected the two publicly is just silly. Would be delete all information about Bill Clinton as President if he changed his name and declared that he no longer wished to be associated with his other name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.206.11 (talk • contribs) on 28 August 2007.

Dear readers: For what it's worth, regarding the July 2006 discussion above about WorldNetDaily (WND) as a reliable source, WND reported back in June 2003 that Robert Beale, the father of Theodore Beale, was not only a shareholder in WND but was also a member of the board. See [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32878], an article about Robert Beale's criminal tax problems. I have added some additional information on Robert Beale and his tax problems, but I have limited this mainly to a footnote, as this article is about Theodore, not his father. Considering Robert Beale's current status (in jail awaiting trial) and the fact that Robert Beale's ex-wife reportedly ended up with many Robert Beale's assets, one has to wonder whether Robert Beale is still a shareholder, etc. in WND. Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bibliography" section

This section lists "Rebel Moon" in the subsection "As sole author", but most sources list Bruce Bethke. The book's cover lists Vox Day as co-author, presumably because the book is a prequel to the video game Rebel Moon. I'm moving the item to the "As a contributor" section. Vrmlguy (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

If I read User:Xday's somewhat gnomic edit summaries correctly his/her problem is with Beale's writings being labelled "controversial", and not with the quotes themselves. The description of "controversial" here seems self-evident to me, but "self-evident" doesn't get stuff into the pages of Wikipedia: it's just another way of saying opinion. In other words, perhaps he/she has a point after all. We either need a source for this description, or a more neutral way to introduce the material, which is not in itself disputed. What we don't need is further deletion of the quotes themselves, which have perfectly adequate sourcing. Suggestions welcome from regular contributors here, otherwise I'll have a try. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Becasue Beale is obviously less controversial than Richard Dawkins and more famous public figures, it's strange to have a separate controversial views section when there is no views section at all. I followed the example of the Dawkins page by removing the section and putting all of the controversies into a section on the subjects mentioned, feminism, equality and multiculturalism. The controversy information is good, but it shouldn't be there if there's no information on the worldview and politics. More information is needed on the other sections, especially the religion-atheism section, and there should be one on games as well. Maybe one on economics and history too. I saw that most descriptions of Dawkins's views are not sourced, so question if more direct sourcing is actually required or not since there's so many already?Xday (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Omniscience or Omni-Benevolance?

I added the "dubious-discuss" template because there is an issue with the wording in this section as it says "omniscience" (all-knowing) where, as it would seem based on the rest of the paragraph that what is meant is omni-benevolance (all-good). Vox's idea of "omniderigence" as a Neo-Calvinist doctrine describing God as performing "evil" in the world would not be antithetical to omniscence, but omni-benevolance. --Carlon (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Vox doesn't believe in omniscience. In his atheism book, he wrote "First, it is important to note that the Christian God, the god towards whom Dawkins directs the great majority of his attacks, makes no broad claims to omniscience. Although there are eighty-seven references to the things that the biblical God knows, only a single example could potentially be interpreted as a universal claim to complete knowledge. The only straightforward claim to omniscience is made on God’s behalf by the Apostle John, who clearly states “he knows everything.” However, the context in which the statement is made also indicates that this particular “everything” is not intended to encompass life and the universe, but rather everything about human hearts. Not only does this interpretation make more sense in light of the verse than with an inexplicable revelation of a divine quality that appears nowhere else in the Bible, but it is also in keeping with many previous statements made about God’s knowledge. After all, when Hercule Poirot confronts the murderer in an Agatha Christie novel and informs the killer that he knows everything, the educated reader does not usually interpret this as a statement that the Belgian detective is confessing that he is the physical manifestation of Hermes Trismegistus, but rather that he knows everything about the crime he has been detecting." Xday (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A Classic Libertarian?

The opening sentence of this section states that Beale is "a classic libertarian." As well as his views on abortion and immigration, he has made numerous statements on his blog and in interviews which contradict this assertion: his views - as described in the article - on women and voting for example. Sufficient that this description of him is not supported. Perhaps it would be more accurate to state that he claims to be so (if a source can be found).

It also looks like the sections on Beale's economic views are selectively somewhat flattering. Think I'll take a looky at the page history... Plutonium27 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Xday asserts above that "Becasue (sic) Beale is obviously less controversial than Richard Dawkins and more famous public figures" he'll "question whether more direct sourcing is actually required" because "most descriptions of Dawkins' views are not sourced". Oh but lets. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Plutonium27: "Classic libertarian" here is intended to mean extreme absence of government interference. Vox's opinions about the morality of abortion or the advisability of mass immigration plausibly contradict "libertarian" in the sense of commitment to equalitarian rather than traditional morals. Personally I would suggest replacing the term with "classical liberal" to emphasize Vox's primary thrust in all his rhetoric, the limitation of state power. However upon reading Wikipedia's understanding of the term I see that progressive morality issues like abortion can still be read into "classical liberalism" under the color of "civil liberties."

To avoid all confusion, perhaps Vox should be labeled "an advocate of limited government and antagonist of progressive morality." It's verbose, but no uncontroversial and succinct term exists. This should satisfy Vox by explicitly dissociating him from statist Nazis while still permitting feminists and immigrationists to maintain their outrage over his casuistries of rape and observations on the historical practicability of deportations. --Voxdayfan (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

removal of misinterpreted citation + dubious tags

These tags were originally justified but they no longer seem to apply now Ive corrected the citation so it links to an article supporting the claims made. Although my views on economics are almost polar opposites to Vox's, I fully believe he did correctly anticipate the crises. I dont see any need to worry that his accurate prediction adds any credibility to his economic views; virtually no serious people take notice of Vox or any other Austrian School economist. At a recent meeting with Lord Griffith of Goldman Sachs for exampe, he advised that as far as he knows there not a single senior banker that believes in Austrian School economics or even in less hard core free market theory like EMF – they all accept at least a limited need for government intervention in the economy. So with even leading capitalists partially accepting Keynesian economics, theres no reason to down play Vox's credentials here, if anything its likely a good thing he helps get more folk interested in this subject. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations used to support statements they don't quite match

Bearing in mind that Wikipedia uses WP:V as criteria, some of the references below don't match their uses. Granted, the statements quoted may be true, but that means that extra sources are needed:

• He has twice been a member of the SFWA's Nebula Novel Jury - the reference mentions him once, as a member of the 2007 jury.
• has published four fantasy novels - the referenced link says: The first book, The War in Heaven, appeared in 2000; the second, The World in Shadow, is planned for March 2002, and Beale is busy on the third installment, The Wrath of Angels.
• Beale graduated from Bucknell University in 1990 with double degrees in Economics and East Asian Studies - points to page on recent programmes that makes no mention of his qualifications - perhaps due to mistaken link or reformatting of page by owners.Autarch (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Marked for Deletion

Why is this article marked for deletion? There are 8 external sources to provide validity to the entry.

(It's marked for deletion because Theo doesn't want it here and has tried repeatedly to either remove it or to sanitize parts of it that offended him...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.15.250 (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

3d blaster...

Anyone who has played "The War in Heaven" (1999, PC) will have a hard time believing that this guy "pioneered" ANYTHING that has anything to do with games, least of all graphics. I can find no other reference to Chris Taylor working with Beale, and nothing about either of them pioneering 3d hardware. There are only 2 sources for this section: One is a non-working link (to newsbytes), and the other refers to a print magazine. If anyone has a copy of the original CGW article, I would love to see it. Even if the CGW article clearly backs up what the author here is claiming, I'm still not convinced that it is authoritative, or even notable. I guess what I'm saying is, even if Beale had some sort of tangential involvement with this technology, it seems extremely unlikely that he was all that instrumental in its development.

So, I'm going to delete this whole section. If anyone thinks it is verifiable and notable, please make your case. Messiahxi (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wmicawber2nd (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Beale's father, Robert Beale, was involved with the graphics card company Artist Graphics. Beale's involvement with graphics technology is limited to this-- his game Rebel Moon Rising was marketed as bundleware along with one of the Artist Graphics boards. The problem for Fenris Wolf Software was that Quake came out and obliterated their graphics engine, making it irrelevant overnight-- that's why GT Interactive yanked funding. For what it's worth (not much, and I'm not editing the article directly but rather making comments here) one wonders how much of this article is puffery written by Ted Beale himself. His efforts to portray himself as some sort of graphics innovator don't seem to be fooling anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.63.135 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rebel Moon was bundled with the Creative Labs 3D Blaster and Rebel Moon Rising was bundled with the first Intel MMX chip. GT Interactive didn't yank Fenris Wolf's funding, it lost a lawsuit against Beale's company before going out of business.Xday (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That ain't what I heard, "XDay." My understanding was that when GT Interactive saw the state of the game engine and that it didn't have arbitrary geometry (in 1998 or whatever it still didn't have arbitrary geometry) they pulled your funding. One way or another, the company flamed out in grand style as has come to be expected, and many were grandly amused. Such good entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.15.250 (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mouse patent

This edit mentioned a patent, which appears to be this one. I have two questions:

1. Is this this same Theodore Beale? The patent was granted to someone in Zug, Switzerland.
2. The patent is described as the "ornamental design for an input device, substantially as shown and described". Does this mean that it is purely the outer appearance of the device rather than functionality - in other words, is this patent notable or just trivial?Autarch (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It is the same Theodore Beale. He has discussed the mouse on his blog. The patent is for a multi-button (18 buttons and a scroll wheel) mouse, each button being tied to a function of the software application being used. It also allows customization, so the buttons can be assigned to the functions of a new SW application. Leatherwing (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This the mouse with this review?86.43.120.173 (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP isssues

I removed some unsourced material and material only sourced to a/his blog about other persons. If this material is going to be readded, especially if it involves BLP, can the sources be improved and the material widely covered/notable? I can here from the COI board. TIA --Tom (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Section ordering

Given that the lead states that Beale is a tech guy before he's an author, is there any reason why the body section on Beale's video games shouldn't be put above his "views"? Eugene (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Band membership

I re-removed the statement about his membership in Psykosonic, which I had previously removed because the reference went to a dead link. Someone re-added the material with a new link, http://www.billboard.com/charts/dance-club-play-songs#/song/psykosonik/welcome-to-my-mind/2301686 - however this link also says nothing about Beale's membership in the band. The previous editor didn't leave a comment on the talk or edit pages. Please don't revert this without a reference that clearly connects Beale and this band's one Billboard hit. 76.218.68.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

The October 16 edits were made by user XDay, who has previously been warned about conflicts of interest in editing this article by a couple of Wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.68.67 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

User XDay keeps reverting edits and adding links that do not support the material s/he is adding. The links show that a band named Psychosonik had Billboard songs. They do not show that T. Beale was involved in the band at the time. Please come talk about the issue on the Talk page rather than taking action which may be perceived as edit warring, particularly with the previous warning about conflict of interest. 76.218.68.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

Discography?

The "Discography" section appears to be more appropriately located on a page about Psykosonik. Are any of these items listed things he has put out under his own name? If not, it seems like the list should be marked "With Psychosonik" (if he was a member at the time), or removed/moved to the band's page. 76.218.68.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

I later removed post-1994 Psykosonik items as the WP page for the band says Beale left after 94, and an album which was actually a later project by another band member. 76.218.68.67 (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The return of the Great Depression as college textbook

This edit added the claim that The Return of the Great Depression has been adopted as a textbook in college courses at several American universities, including the University of Colorado at Boulder but the provided link only backs up the claim about it being required for a course at the University of Boulder, with no mention of other universities.Autarch (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I just removed it. Not only does the reference only back up claim for university of boulder, it's a primary source for that, and doesn't speak to notability.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Lack of secondary sources on views

The section on Beale's views appears to be almost entirely sourced to his own writings. This would appear to be problematical in terms of WP:SECONDARY (articles should rely primarily on secondary sources), WP:ABOUTSELF (articles should not rely primarily on questionable sources -- and WND qualifies as such, writing about themselves) & WP:DUE (proportioning articles in accordance to their prominence in reliable sources). This section should be predominantly about what RSs say about Beale's view -- not what Beale himself says. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

The enormous edit you made in removing the entire views section seems excessive, when much of the material in the section was quotes from Beale's writing and statement that appear to meet "any educated person... will be able to verify..." test. If you have direct knowledge of any given source and believe it does not support a particular statement, remove that statement and discuss it here please, so that either other editors can look at the source and come to consensus, or agree the statement is unsupported. Removing the entire "views" section goes a bit far. I reverted the edit and will try to go through the sub-sections myself as I have time. You are welcome to help. 76.218.68.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

I removed most of the section again, because whether or not any educated person can tell what the blog says doesn't mean that what it says is encyclopedic. It's not a notable blog, so what it says isn't notable generally. I'm not worried about whether or not he thinks that stuff, but about whether anyone cares that he thinks that stuff besides him. I doubt it, given the general lack of coverage of what he thinks about.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm - most of the sources when I went through were not his blog but his World Net Daily columns and possibly his books if I remember correctly? I haven't looked at your edits yet though - last I saw, user XDay had completely removed the section on his views again (raising yet another flag about whether he has a conflict of interest). Beale seems primarily notable at this point as a figure of interest for his politics including his column and published books. I would welcome more discussion on how to develop a section that would incorporate this information effectively. 76.218.68.67 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. My mistake. I meant his world net daily columns. Anyway, I still think that unless someone in the world besides Beale discusses what his views are, there's no way to tell if his views are encyclopedic or not. If no one cares what he says in his columns, then using his columns to verify the fact that he said the stuff is beside the point. Also, I think it's problematic using his own works as evidence for his views unless we're going to do it by direct quotation. Summaries such as were in the views section previously which are sourced to essays by Beale strike me as inherently either synthesis or original research. My feeling right now is that we shouldn't have anything in the views section that wasn't discussed by an independent secondary source.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

minor edits

Xday, can you please read the policy on what counts as a minor edit? I have no real problem with your additions to the sentence on Robert Beale, although it strikes me as too much detail for the article on his son, but there is no way that that can be construed as a minor edit. See WP:MINOR for information.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism and economics

I'm starting a new section on this, because the conversation is getting too diffuse to follow. I've been through newsbank, and there's nothing mentioned on Beale's views on these topics outside of a letter to the editor of the Star-Trib. I haven't finished checking other databases, and I will be doing that, but there's nothing in either google news or google books. There's a ton of stuff on his video games, so I think that material about them should constitute the bulk of the article, as it more or less does now. I think that more material on Beale's seemingly unnotable views on politics and economics would constitute undue weight (WP:UNDUE). Perhaps others will have better luck finding sources?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm unlikely to have a lot of time to work on this in the coming week, but I did spend some time a week or two ago trying to find reliable secondary sources like reviews of his books. Unfortunately other than the one that was already linked to, which just mentions the book in passing as one of many responding to Dawkins (I think it was Publisher's Weekly?), I have yet to find any. I didn't go super deep - hit Google, Google News and the archives of a few major papers (I don't have Lexis/Nexis access) - but didn't find any reviews other than on self-published blogs. Doesn't mean they don't exist but it appears at least on an initial search that the book didn't make much of a splash outside a corner of the blogosphere.76.218.68.67 (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

User XDay has just reverted or removed essentially all the edits I made in the past week or so, and marked most of them "minor." He's been warned about potentially having a conflict of interest in editing this article in the past, and about using the "minor edit" tag inappropriately. He hasn't come to the Talk page to discuss any of his edits or the concerns about his editing. I've asked for help from a couple of more senior editors but am wondering if this should go to Wikipedia:ANI? XDay, it would be better to come talk about the editing issues here and see if we can reach consensus, with other editors as needed. Will you do that? 76.218.68.67 (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If other editors cannot stop removing accurate information that is correctly sourced, then they should leave the article deleted because it is worthless. It is stupid to keep removing facts because you don't like them or to say things like Beale didn't write the Psykosonik songs on the Billboard charts when I look at the CD single and his name is on the copyright. If his economic views aren't notable, then no page is needed.Xday (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you're talking about several different things. If your source for material is the packaging on a CD, then cite the CD, not a URL for a page that doesn't support the content you're sourcing it to.

I've been editing to remove material not supported by sources, but also added back material removed in an earlier large edit. Then you have reverted my edits without discussion. Deletion of the article isn't at issue here as notability was discussed and established through consensus. Part of the problem is that you've been warned several times about editing this article as a several editors have suggested you have a conflict of interest, which you don't seem to have addressed. It would be nice if we could discuss this issue in a civil manner rather than saying others' editing choices are "stupid."76.218.68.67 (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@Xday, blanking the page because it doesn't include material you think is important isn't going to get us to an article. If you actually don't think the article should exist, you're free to nominate it for deletion. However, I think you do actually think it should exist, and that it should include material on Beale's views and on Psykosonik. That's fine, and if you participate in discussions on this page and find reliable sources for that material, perhaps some of it will end up back in the article. But if you blank the page instead of talking, there's no chance of you being able to shape the article according to your views. Do you want to start with the views section, with the Psykosonik issue, do both at the same time, something else?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@76.218.68.67. It is stupid. Look at the guy's column archive on WND. This is a nationally syndicated columnist with more than 520 weekly published columns, who appears on national radio and international television on a regular basis, and the views section refers to one column on immigration, a subject he seldom writes about. There is nothing about economics or atheism, the two subjects he's written books about. How does that make sense? The Media Matters stuff should be there, but it is crazy to pretend it is the only reliable source and Fox News, CBC television, and all the national radio shows don't count. If you look at other biographies, all of them have some basic unsourced stuff. Where is the source for SFWA or Mensa? How do we know he's even American if he lives in Italy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xday (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think that other unsourced stuff doesn't belong in the article, you are free to remove it, but its presence is irrelevant to the question of whether anything else does or does not belong in there. I don't think that anyone here is disputing that he *does* hold the views on economics or atheism, just whether anyone cares whether he does. If we don't have secondary sources discussing his views, then his views aren't notable, and don't seem to me to belong in the article. Also, the proportion of his work that's devoted to a given topic doesn't seem too relevant to me either. Maybe he rarely writes about immigration, but his views on immigration have caught the attention of third parties, which is why it gets to go in here. It also seems to me that we would be doing original research (see WP:OR) and synthesis (see WP:SYNTH) by summarizing his columns as an account of his views. Aren't there reviews in reliable sources of his books? That would be the kind of place to find independent discussions of his views. The review that was previously used as a source didn't discuss his book at all, it just listed it among responses to Dawkins etc. I wouldn't mind a sentence about that, but the review didn't say anything other than that his book on atheism was one of a bunch of books on atheism that respond to Dawkins and Co., so I can't see using it for more than a statement about that simple fact.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

But there are lots of secondary sources discussing them. Why do you think one article from Media Matters indicates more interest from third parties than national radio interviews with well-known hosts like Sean Hannity and Peter Schiff? Why wouldn't it be notable that Beale is recognized by third parties as predicting the economic crash if it is notable for Nouriel Roubini and others? I don't see any reliable sources on Roubini's page, for example: "Nouriel Roubini (born 29 March 1959) is an American economist. He is celebrated for having predicted both the collapse of the United States housing market and the worldwide recession which started in 2008. He teaches at New York University's Stern School of Business and is the chairman of Roubini Global Economics, an economic consultancy firm." Why should this sort of thing be deleted from Beale's page but not from Roubini's?Xday (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not editing Roubini's page here. If you think there's a problem with that page, you can go edit it. We're editing this page. I don't think that interviews with the author are secondary sources for what the books say. Book reviews are. We can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN) if you think that more opinions are necessary. Also, the IP editor is interested, so it might be best to wait until xe weighs in.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're applying a standard that doesn't appear to apply to any other biography page. If you don't think the views are notable, then why did you undo the page deletion? The "editing" is stupid, inaccurate, and inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. It makes no sense to remove everything Beale has done and then refuse to delete the page. But we can do it your way. I will remove everything here that is not attributed to a secondary source. It will make the article ridiculous, but at least you'll know that it's all sourced to your satisfaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xday (talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing to make a point like that isn't helpful, see WP:POINT. On the other hand, it's fine with me if you want to remove all that stuff. If you want the article deleted, you should nominate it for deletion, but I think that Beale is clearly notable.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to your approach, we now have one of the Internet's most popular libertarians (according to the Alexa listings that were removed) listed as a "popular conservative blog" as per the Star Tribune. Perhaps if the Wall Street Journal reports that he is a woman, we can get that in here too. Do you not see how crazy and inaccurate this is or do you simply not care about the verifiable facts?Xday (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If the WSJ reports that he is a woman, that should definitely go in here, yes. Maybe you could take a little time to read up on Wikipedian standards for inclusion of material, e.g. WP:VERIFIABILITY. It may be inaccurate, but if we don't go by what actual verifiable sources say, we're going to be adrift. If you think the alexa material should be in there, start a section on the talk page here and see what others think. I don't think it should go in, you do. Others will have opinions. We will do what most editors think is good. Why don't we wait to see what the IP editor thinks about the alexa source? Also, you can try the reliable sources noticeboard for more opinions if you'd like. It's WP:RSN.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about the Alexa listing as I'm not familiar with the company. Looking briefly at their site, they appear to promote the idea of web rankings? The information on their reliability on their Wikipedia page raises some concerns for me though. The reliability and relevance seems to be in question but then again the most updated info on that page references 2009, and that article needs further sources to flesh out the info on reliability concerns. Have they been discussed on the reliable sources page? That's where I went to try and figure out if sources like Media Matters would meet consensus; I only added their links when it appeared that MM sources have been deemed acceptable.76.218.68.67 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyedited

I've copyedited this after seeing it at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. The main changes I made were to ensure that the lead para summarises the rest of the article (though the lead could probably be expanded a little), and to pull the disparate content into a broadly date-oriented biography. There are also some assertions that ought to be referenced, especially as this falls under WP:BLP. I haven't looked at earlier versions of the article in any depth, so I make no claim that it's complete or even fully neutral; only that it is a better foundation on which further edits can be built.  —SMALLJIM  22:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edits definitely seem to take the article in a more encyclopedic direction, thanks. In a previous edit, I removed albums listed in the Discography that were not credited to him in the info I could easily find, or that were released by Psykosonik after his apparent departure (1994 according to the band's page I think?) The editor Xday put them back in. So we may be in citation needed territory again - what are your thoughts?76.218.68.67 (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as if these are reissues (remixes?) of old tracks - see the Mortal Kombat and Black Box articles. I don't know much about discographies, but I doubt whether it's reasonable for every reissue of a track to be included - there's probably a guideline somewhere. At the very least, it should be noted that it's only one track on the album.  —SMALLJIM  10:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What languages does Theodore Beale speak?

That he speaks English can be assumed without a source, given that he was born in the United States. It also makes it routine and not necessary to state in this article. That he speaks other languages seems to me to need a source, more to establish notability of the fact than to establish the truth of the fact. The fact that he posts Italian translations of his blog doesn't seem to me to be enough support for this. We should have a third-party source stating that he speaks whatever languages other than English that he speaks, mostly so we can be sure that it's relevant to an understanding of the subject. That is my opinion, anyway. Please discuss!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that Xday believes, based on his edit summary, that an Italian translation appearing on the website proves proficiency in Italian. I'm inclined to agree but is there any proof that the Italian translation is created by Theodore Beale? In my opinion, that would go a long way towards proving a knowledge of the Italian language. If they're a Google/Bablefish translation, obviously that won't prove a proficiency in Italian, though. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that. There are several translations of recent Italian articles dated within days of the original and they are obviously not Google/Bablefish translations. How can you say that his speaking English can be assumed because he was born in the United States but his speaking Italian cannot be when the article says he lives in Italy? The Italian translations into English serve as further confirmation. It seems to me that it might be reasonable to remove the German language, barring further evidence, but not the Italian and the English.Xday (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe he speaks Italian, but unless someone has seen fit to mention the fact in a third-party source, it's evident that no one cares that he speaks Italian. The fact that Italian translations of his articles appear quickly and they're human translations is not evidence that he speaks Italian, just as the fact that his articles appear in English is not evidence that he speaks English. The problem here is that, based on the available third party independent coverage of Theodore Beale, no one cares what languages he speaks. The prefix to his lingualism is not a subject of interest. For comparison, see John Stuart Mill, where the languages he read as a child are listed and cited to reliable sources, because they are important for an understanding of his life and work. Find a secondary source, independent of Theodore Beale, that says he speaks Italian, and into the article it goes. Until then, it seems irrelevant to me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk)

Religion?

Beale is identified in the article as being a Southern Baptist, but in his book "The Irrational Atheist" he writes, "... I am a believer, a non-denominational evangelical Christian to be precise."

What evidence is there that he is Southern Baptist? In a blog post, Mr. Beale indicates that he is non-Trinitarian... a fact that would definitely put Beale outside of fellowship with the Southern Baptist Convention. --Jaiotu (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No comments on this in nearly a month? I'm going to go ahead and change the "religion" notation from "Southern Baptist" to "Non-Denominational" --Jaiotu (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sexist Views?

The Television Idiom and Tropes website points out he has a low view of women. I believe there are some articles of his that support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarofalbany (talk • contribs) 15:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. He is known not because he developed some crappy games, and not because he wrote a shitty flea book, but because he is a vocal misogynist. The poorly written article doesn't even mention it. FSTDT has a thorough compilation of his misogynistic remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.249.165.44 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can find decent sources that meet the WP standards, please go ahead and work on the article. Nothing useful on sexism turned up in a quick search (though carefully constructing a sentence or two illustrated by his own writing might pass the BLP requirements if you left the analysis out, e.g. "Some of his columns for World News Daily describe his views on women: "xxxx"." Just don't stray into OR.)

Media Matters has two columns on him, and they seem to have been accepted as a reliable source from what I can tell looking into the notice board on sources - they're on racism, not sexism, but citeable. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005110061 http://mediamatters.org/blog/201109260014 (sorry I don't have time to construct a paragraph myself - Googling is quick, writing takes a while.)

76.218.68.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

I reverted an edit that removed large amounts of content about his views which were documented with his writings as sources, and am slowly going through adding such secondary sources as can be located, and removing statements which are unsourced. Further help is welcomed. It is somewhat difficult as they are hard to find - Publisher's Weekly mentioned his book on atheism but made no substantial comments about it, and it has no footprint on Google News for example. Searches for it just bring up blogs which aren't appropriate sources for secondary commentary. 76.218.68.67 (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess blogs like Pharyngula (blog) don't count as sources? In case I'm wrong: Vox Day is one sick puppy - Soulkeeper (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Father was former editor at WorldNetDaily

An IP added that his father, Robert Beale, was an editor at WorldNetDaily, where Theodore Beale writes his weekly column. Bruhsam (talk · contribs) removed that sentence saying the phrasing has negative connotations. I don't really agree. It's accurate, and it seems at relevant, so mentioning it parenthetically seems appropriate. Am I missing something? Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it either. It was about as straightforward and objective facts as these things get. The wording on it seems like it could be improved slightly, though. It said where he "was a former board member". The "was" in addition to "former" seems to be doubly past tense, suggesting that his father was no longer a board member at the time he joined the staff. Is that accurate? If that's not, then it should just be either "was a board member" or "is a former board member".DreamGuy (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah! Okay, I tried to fix that. I don't know, it still looks awkward to me, but at least it's better.Grayfell (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

SFWA Expulsion

The page should be updated to reflect Beale's expulsion from the SFWA, and perhaps talk about the circumstances leading to his expulsion. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's formatting or sourcing policies to do an adequate job of it myself. 173.35.190.148 (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Locus Magazine should be an adequate source. I'll work on it a little. 76.218.68.67 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Views and coverage

Many of the recent additions to this article seem to be the direct result of Mr. Beale's recent blog post in which he commented that Wikipedia is unfairly and dishonestly excluding material on his views: "Does [the 'Views section in the Wikipedia article] describe my views at all? Are the totality of my views really limited to little more than a feud with John Scalzi and my expulsion from SFWA? Do I have no opinions on economics, politics, philosophy, literature, and religion despite having written books on the former and the latter? It's telling, too, to observe that if the so-called feud and the expulsion are the only significant aspects of my views, there is no mention of the connection between the former and the latter."

[As a side note, the section on Mr. Beale's views already mentioned his religion (including the fact that he wrote a book, whose title is given, and which is discussed in some more detail in the 'Career' section), his views on feminism, and his stances on race and immigration. But that's not the point.]

Mr. Beale then gave a brief description of his views on economics — he feels that the Austrian School is currently the best explanation available, but is ultimately flawed for various reasons — and stated that "(t)hose are my actual views on the subject. That is the absolute truth. Post them on Wikipedia and they'll be suppressed within 24 hours."

This, I believe, is indicative of a general misunderstanding. Of course Mr. Beale has a great many more views than are provided in this article; for instance, he has expressed an appreciation for the writing of Frank Herbert and a dislike for that of Patrick Rothfuss. I'm certain he also has food preferences, and opinions on the best way to teach mathematics to children. He may even have discussed these views in posts to his blog. But the mere fact that Mr. Beale has a view on a subject does not indisputably lead to the conclusion that the view should be included in Wikipedia's biography of him, not even if he has made a blog post in which he explicitly states that view. Rather, the views which are (or should be) included are those which have drawn significant independent external attention. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the readers of Mr. Beale's blog, and possibly even Mr. Beale himself. DS (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Needs context. What does that even mean?

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, please explain yourself. What does "needs context" mean? Why is it so important that you don't just ask for it, but instead have to revert, even edit war, until it shows up?

There are three good citations now. Choor monster (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Updated to four good citations. Choor monster (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings about its inclusion one way or the other, but I originally removed it because it looked like jokey vandalism. How does someone come in sixth in a five-place competition? The sources confirm that this is one way of describing what happened, but it's pretty confusing, and just adding more sources doesn't fix that problem. I would also point out that just linking to Beale's main blog, rather than a specific post, is not good practice, as Beale is prolific, and the relevant post will quickly get pushed of the main page, if it hasn't already. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll stay neutral on all of this so far, but I can explain Grayfell's question. The Hugo Award voting process specifically allows members to vote for "No award" in a category. That's part of an IRV, not plurality system. More detail on the voting system at [1]. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 20:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about linking to the main blog, I just didn't notice, I fixed it. "No Award" often gets middling votes in the more minor categories—many voters have no idea who the non-writer nominees are—but only rarely makes a showing above dead last in the major categories. L. Ron Hubbard's Black Genesis was a rare instance of that happening in the "Best Novel" category.

I included the link to Beale's blog since he explicitly states "6th in a five-man race! That's totally going in the bio." I assumed some editors might try to raise BLP issues, I believe that comment of his removes even the hint of a concern.

The whole "Sad Puppies" fracas, especially Beale's nomination, has been all over science fiction blogs the past couple of months. If the Beale/Scalzi feud is worth a short paragraph, this odd result is worth a mention. Choor monster (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Hugo nominations are certainly worth a mention, and apparently coming in dead last is also significant, but I think it should be explained in the article a bit more. Beale's notability is not entirely confined to sci-fi circles, so a little bit of clarification above just linking to Hugo Award would help. On the other hand, it would be easy for this kind of thing to get into undo weight, so maybe not. I dunno. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the Hugo Award page could be improved a bit, since the relevant information is buried rather deeply. Perhaps an inclusion of a section on voting oddities, and then a direct link from the word "No Award" here to that section. Note that "No Award" was the winner in 1959 for Best movie and Best new writer, see also no 1971 winner for Best Dramatic Presentation, and "No Award" doing rather well in several categories in 1987, including beating out L. Ron Hubbard in "Best Novel". Choor monster (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• A side-comment on a remark made above. "No Award" is not a feature of IRV, but a conscious choice made regarding the Hugos. Most U.S. elections, for example, simply do not allow "None of the Above", but there is no theoretical objection to this possibility, although laws and constitutions would have to be rewritten. The Academy Awards use IRV, but do not have "No Award" on the ballot. I presume the Academy is all about self-promotion. In contrast, science fiction fandom loves to show off its snarky side. Choor monster (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP and No Award references

Although the official document suffices to prove that yes, Beale was #6 behind No Award at #5, WP isn't about "truth", but about notability, in addition to verification. Moreover, BLP acts as an extra restriction that must be strictly adhered to. In particular, we can't just list any old true fact about Beale, even with a reference. We have to see if third party RS's out there have picked up on the item or not. In this case, there are two, the Daily Dot and File 770.

Note also, that in general two reliable sources are required for "public figures", especially with material that might be construed as negative about the BLP.

These two are the minimum sources needed to justify the inclusion of the fact. Note that a long-term editor of this page kept reverting this "fact" until these two sources were added. If you like, the official source is optional, as is Beale's own blog on the subject. (Which I included at the time since I thought someone might view this inclusion as undue or the like.) Nevertheless, the outcome is so freaking strange (how can you be #6 in a 5-person race?) that it may be proper to include these references. If it was just an ordinary result, even finishing #5 out of 5, no one would find that unusually peculiar. As it is, the result was first added by an anon, then reverted by an editor who thought it must be vandalism, he then accepted the fact after it was sourced. Choor monster (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Children ?

I cannot find any secondary source, and one is not cited, regarding the subject's children. Are children subject to unverified original reporting? It seems like this should have a source, but I am not sure what one would be. The previously linked blog has posts that appear to reference at least one of his childrne, but other than suggesting one exists there is little other information, and anyways, this is primary. Danheskett (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME addresses this. Any such names of relatives must normally come from either a reliable secondary source, or self-information from a BLP. Choor monster (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Slight dig

It is not within our remit to make worse or make better what the sources do. In this case, note that TB himself commented on his blog about the "slight dig". Choor monster (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing Problems

I have started to verify the links and sources used in this BLP. I am concerned about many of them, and am attempting to clarify, re-write, and boldy fix the problems as I see them. There are many links that do not actually say what is implied in the article about the subject. Some of the links are also dead. I will make my revisions short and targeted. If anyone has good links to share, I am trying to find reliable sourcing for the SFWA expulsion claim. I cannot find anything that actually identifies the subject as being expelled, that isn't a reference to a SFWA website posting that does not actually name the subject. This seems to be a well known fact, but there is not much sourcing for it that does not run afoul of original research.

Anyone interesting in helping please hit me up on my talk page or here. Kennedy Trengove (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Um? Locus published a piece on this based on Beale's own statement that he had been expelled. DS (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Where is this statement by Beale that says he has been expelled? I read the link from the Locus magazine article, and it excepts from Day's own post, but that excerpt only talks about a vote, not an actual expulsion. The SFWA website has a post that is similar wording saying a member had been expelled, but it is not named. So far as I can tell, there is no primary source anywhere that names Day as the person SFWA expelled. The secondary sources that claim it is Day use either the SFWA notice, or Day's post on his blog, neither of which confirm that Day was expelled. Day's own blog claims that he was not expelled, only that a vote to expel him was taken by the board. Given that this is a BLP, we should have either self-confirmation by Day that he was expelled, or a primary source, or secondary sources. I don't see any of those being met. Especially since this is a BLP, and especially since Day claims not to have been expelled, there does not seem to be an acceptable level of verifiability of this claim. I know that there is no original research allowed here, but I did email the SFWA to see if they can clarify the situation and point to an appropriate primary source that Day is no longer a member because of expulsion. I will let this sit for a bit and see what turns up. It seems to me that there is no verifiable source that Day was expelled or even investigated by the SFWA. If Day claims the opposite is true, and finding no other source that meets the requirements of BLP, I am getting an itchy trigger finger to boldly rewrite this section. Open to your ideas/feedback/thoughts on how to make this article better and fall within BLP guidelines.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that "the board voted to expel him" is not the same as "he was expelled" ? DS (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering that as well, because I'm not following the logic here. The source contains the information that the subjected was voted to be, and thus was, expelled from the organization. There's no difference between the two and someone refusing to recognize legitimacy of such actions doesn't make it not what it is. Keegan (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing it, the subject is, on his blog, saying that he was not expelled, only that the board voted to expel him. That is what the quoted selection that Locus and the subject both quote from. The excerpt pointedly does not say he was expelled. The official notice on the SFWA website does not say he was expelled. So I have two very specific concerns: First, Day uses "purged" in the byline of his website. The only primary source we have that hints he was officially expelled from the SFWA is from an (apparently private) e-mail from the SFWA to Day. SFWA does not confirm (at this time) that he was expelled. Day's own excerpt of the e-mail is partial, and does not say he was expelled, only that a vote happened. In subsequent posts to his blog, Day claims he was not expelled. This to me reads a sensational, self-serving, self-published claim from a BLP subject, that has no primary or secondary verification. After looking extensively, the only sources are self-published by Day, or reference the self-published excerpt by Day. The SFWA is a 3rd party, and this runs afoul of BLP policy which states "it does not involve claims about third parties" and "it is not unduly self-serving". Secondly, the claim that Day was expelled by the SFWA is itself an extraordinary claim. The SFWA apparently has not expelled many (or any?) people in it's longish history. Here we have a subject of an article claiming the SFWA "purged" him, potentially in retaliation for running for President of the SFWA. This is a serious accusation, one that Wikipedia is amplfying based soley on the self-published, otherwise unsourced claims on his own blog. This violates the self-published portion of the BLP policy, as well digs right into feedback-loop warning. In my opinion, the claim is no verifiable. Given that this is a BLP, it should be rewritten to reflect that it is not certain, or removed altogether. Please let me know if/why you disagree with this application of the BLP policy, and if so how you might suggest to make the article better.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, one more important point. About whether the board's actions constitute the correct course of action to expel a member, I have no idea. Without doing original research, it seems impossible to answer the question. Given that there is no source that is verifiable, other than Day (or sources that quote from Day), it seems irrelevant since the discussion should not be about what happened, or what was legitimate, but rather what is encyclopedic and what can be verified through reliable sources that meet the BLP policy guidelines. Again, I am happy to let this sit for a bit longer, but I am thinking that some bold edits to revise the section are warranted.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"the SFWA Board has unanimously voted for your expulsion from the organization, effective immediately."'[2] A motion was made, it was passed, and effected immediately upon passing. This means one is expelled. You can write as extensively as you wish to argue against this, but that's simply how expelling one from an organization works. It's published by a second party accounting for a first party action, which makes it a verifiable and reliable source. Keegan (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. None of the things you just said are verified or at this point verifiable: that a motion was made, that it was passed, and that it's result is expulsion. Those are internal workings of an organization which I don't know anything about, and which are not sourced by you (or anyone). For example, Congress can pass a resolution saying the sun is blue, but that does not make it so. Likewise, they can pass a resolution undoing a law, but that does not mean the law is undone. The quoted piece, from Locus, references Day's own self-published extraordinary claim. Additionally, the "second party" here, being Locus, is quoting Day, who is quoting (apparently) an SFWA internal e-mail. This is a self-published source. Locus is not quoting the SFWA e-mail, they are quoting the subject of the BLP who is himself quoting a primary source. It is outside of guidelines for sourcing BLP. I have no opinion if it was not BLP, but I think that is irrelevant at this time. The sourcing is especially worrisome since SFWA has declined to post a definitive statement that Day was expelled. The only original source that I have found is Day's own self-promoting claim to have been "purged", a claim that is otherwise not sourced.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out, that especially for BLP, Locus Online does not appear to be a reliable source. It is a separate entity from Locus Magazine, which is a well-known publication with regular editorial controls. The website holds itself as a distinct thing - "the website of the magazine". It the news section, that is described as the "SF&F News Blog". It is unsigned and it is unclear that it is under the regular editorial control of the magazine. The guideline says: "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. I do not believe Locus Online meets the guideline. Nonetheless, I haven't yet edited it, I am only collecting feedback for a potential rewrite.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A fellow wikipedian also pointed out to me that you are conflating "second-party" and "secondary source". This is a good point I should have noticed myself. Locus is a secondary source, not a second party. The parties invovled are Day and SFWA. Locus Online does not quote SFWA, it quotes Day, who is quoting SFWA. The quote you referenced may be originated with SFWA, but came (as indicated on the Locus story) from Day, who claims immediately in the same blog post that he was not expelled. This exactly why additional sources are needed, and I have found none that have any more proximity than Locus does.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Read through the rest of the comments on that blog post, especially the ones from Beale himself. DS (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not sure what I can do with those. They are comments left on a blog, they are never suitable for use as a source. If "VD" is the subject, then it's certainly interesting. I think the question remains, if this is such widely known and important information, why isn't there a source which is reliable and appropriate for a BLP available? It is confusing that SFWA has ejected a member and not announced it, or published it in a way which is verifiable. The subject claims that it never happened, the blog post that is the only source for the information says it didn't happen, and there is no alternative source that says it happened. It looks like you know what the story is, can you make a suggestion on how to handle it? I feel that it's a sourcing problem especially in light of BLP. Kennedy Trengove (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The posts attributed to "VD" are definitely Theodore Beale, who blogs under the name "Vox Day". That's why you've been referring to him as "Day", remember? I believe the problem stems from Mr Beale's casuist distinction between "the SFWA Board has unanimously voted for (Beale's) expulsion from the organization, effective immediately" and "(Beale) was expelled", since he claimed that an expulsion would place SFWA in violation of Title XXII, Chapter 180, Section 18 of Massachusetts law. However, reading his subsequent comments makes it indisputable. For instance, here, where Beale says that he's fine with File770 referring to the incident as the first expulsion from SFWA. Or here, where he says "I cannot say I mind the distinction of being the first author kicked out of SFWA in the least." DS (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

When you says "posts", I think you are talking about "comments", to the blog. The blog posts, as opposed to comments, are signed "Vox", and there are comments in the comments on other threads attributed to "Vox". There are also comments left on blog posts from "VD" written as though they are subject Day. I am presuming that you mean to say blog posts by "Vox", blog comments by "VD", and blog comments by "Vox" are all written by the subject, Theodore Beale aka Vox Day. Is that a fair summary? This is may be true, and it might be correct, but it's not verifiable. Researching this on archive.org, it looks like the postscript on the original announcement blog post was added after the time of the comments in that thread. I don't think your comment is in keeping with the NPOV spirit that should be applied here, and such a personal negative remark about a BLP should probably be removed immediatel. I also don't think that it shows an appropriate attitude towards a BLP. If we had a proper secondary source, including this information would not be a problem. However, given that SFWA has not released the information, and given no one has provided a secondary source (and I have not been able to find one), this information is outside of the guidelines for inclusion in a BLP. Even if the authorship is established, which is probably possible, the user comments on a self-published blog are not a source that can included.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Locus looks reliable enough to me for minutiae of the SF&F community, and it reports, literally, "Beale Expelled from SFWA". I don't see any ambiguity here. Huon (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I can't see how Locus meets the guidelines for BLP. It's not even signed. I became curious after reading the link to Locus, and then following the link to the subjects blog. The headline, and the excerpt, don't match the content or point of the blog post, which got me even more curious. Finally I was curious when trying to find a second better source, and of all the articles that express the same point, Locus is by far the most reliable looking, and they all point back to the same blog post by the subject. It doesn't add up. I happen to disagree about the Locus source being good enough, but even if that were true, it would be better to have two sources.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there any objection to me re-writing the section to reflect that the subject alleges that he has not been expelled, but leaving the information otherwise intact? There are two sources from the subject explicitly claiming that he was not expelled, and the Locus source which says otherwise. Normally false balance is not good, but I think this case, it is justified considering the poor sourcing and the subjects stated position. If the SFWA clarifies, or another source emerges, it can always be improved.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No objection if you can find a third-party source saying that Beale explicitly claims he was not expelled. I have seen no such claim, and I don't think we should add our personal interpretation of Beale's writings. Huon (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of a third party source, for BLP, the guideline suggests it's fine to use self-published materials. The way this came to my attention is that click the link from Wikipedia to Locus. Locus says clearly, Beale was expelled. It quotes from subjects blog, but the text quoted does not line up to the link provided directly to the blog. On that page, it says "UPDATE: I was initially been under the impression that SFWA had expelled me from the organization. But after legal review, it was determined that the Board merely took the first step in the process since they have not yet held the full membership vote to confirm their decision that is required by the existing Massachusetts By-Laws.". Then, looking by tag, I see that just a few days ago, he posted a longer piece about it, stating: "Notice that SFWA has never officially announced my expulsion. That's because it never took place. They informed me privately of the Board vote for my expulsion, which was true, but they could not announce my expulsion publicly because "the Board's decision" was not, in August 2013, sufficient to actually expel a member. Note in particular the reference to " the existing Massachusetts By-Laws" in the 2013 announcement." . It seems reasonable to conclude that Locus reported it's headline from subjects original blog post, before he added the postscript (and reworded it a little, causing an apparently innocent misquote by Locus). So this is why it causes me to question Locus as a reliable source. They are quoting the subject, from his own blog post, which (now) contradicts what the source is. SFWA does not confirm that Day was expelled. Day claims he was not expelled. Without doing original research, it's not possible to find out his status with the SFWA or what process is required to expel a member or what rules were in place when. That's why my initial reaction was that this does not meet the standards for BLP. The idea of a NPOV rewrite that includes both the Locus source, and the subject's self-published account, appeals to me because it respects the goal of BLP, which is to give deference to lesser known people who are not especially notable (but still notable enough to have an article), while containing the potential damage if the information from Locus, which is contradicted by it's only source, is not accurate. Again open to suggestions.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This conversation has become moot. Locus has revised their source.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Locus Online remains a RS, but like RS, it sometimes makes mistakes and has to eat crow over it and, most importantly of all, update and provide corrections. It is a WP:NEWSBLOG, not a personal blog. They link to SFWA. Note that there is nothing negative to be inferred when a source quotes a personal blog in a manner we forbid as OR or BLP-violating or the like. On the contrary, the whole point is that we rely on secondary sources to make those kinds of decisions. That Vox Day is Beale's pseudonym and that the VD blog is written by Beale is clear, and there is no OR on this. Note also that WP:SELFPUB only permits self-published sources for certain kinds of information about the self-publisher only, in particular, if Day/Beale's blog (or other personal blogs) is our only source for his derogatory comments about third parties, then those comments must be deleted.
• PS: Kudos to Kennedy for identifying this issue. May I suggest you inline your references like I did? This is a Talk page, and it's much easier, both to enter and for readers to follow. Choor monster (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Choor, I am not sure I know the difference between the types of references. Can you please help me understand them? It seems random to me when a comment is inlined or footnoted. As far as Locus goes, I continue to be skeptical about being a reliable source. The magazine itself is undoubtedly so. But the blog you cite seems to run afoul of the guideline you linked to, namely that the authors are professional journalists and that the blog is subject to editorial control of the parent publication. The articles are unsigned and corrections are haltingly rare (in fact I can't find any others they've done, but I just may not be able to ferret it out, so far as I can tell they don't publish corrections to the blog any where centrally). How would you recommend finding out if they are under editorial full control of the magazine? Or put another way, how do you determine absent any easily locatable information, if a newsblog is a RS for BLP subjects? It seems like to be familiar with the genre and industry that everyone knows Locus Online, but to me it seems problematic to rely on "what insiders agree" as a standard that is useful for encyclopedia content. Finally, since you seem to be well versed in it, can you help clarify when or when not to use comments on a self-published blog? The inference was made earlier that a comment on Day/Beale's blog post was obviously from him, but it was signed with something different from the blog post, and blog permits self-named comments. I figured it was moot because my reading of RS policy was that blog comments can never be used for any sourcing purposes. Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

An inlined reference is one that you can click on right at the spot where it's mentioned and go to the relevant webpage. They are highly discouraged in articles, because of minimal citation information provided, and bitrot means they are not useful for long-term referencing. They are perfectly fine for Talk, because the extra information isn't needed, and in another week or two no one will care. References provide the information (and links) down later in the relevant WP page. Because you did not provide a reflist template, your two referenced webpages were set to always appear at the bottom of the page, which can be really confusing when people start other threads. (I added a reflist template so this will not happen.) And it's usually a bit of extra work to click through to the webpage. As to how you do this, if you edit this page using the standard "Edit" interface, you can compare your references with mine, and you can imitate mine. In brief, instead of ref-html-tags you use a single pair of square brackets, first listing the url, second listing the text you want readers to see. If you use a visual editor, I have no idea, there is presumably some icon you click for adding an inline url as opposed to a reference. (If you like, I'll inline your references for you.)

As to reliability of locusmag.com, it relies on professional contributors, it does not accept freelance, and it is under editorial supervision. See About Locus Online and Locus Online FAQ. That it's not the magazine people themselves doing the supervision is irrelevant. (I note that Locus Online claims to be "semi-autonomous", which almost certainly means the editor in charge is left alone, so long as he maintains the same high standards as Locus itself. I view this as utterly routine: newspapers similarly don't micromanage their Food/Restaurant columnists.) They obviously do provide corrections, we have one identified, there is no requirement for a newspaper-like centralized "Corrections" section. I assume major corrections are rare anyway, and many of them will be fairly silent, done in place. There is absolutely no requirement for news pieces to be signed, in fact, this is often not done in dedicated inside-the-industry journalism. (This is the opposite of general interest newspapers, where the news reports are signed and the editorials are unsigned.) It's outside our remit to wonder about "what insiders agree", if a source consistently gets it right, it's reliable. (This is similar to our relying on secondary sources to make BLP-judgment calls for us.) As I pointed out, WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SELFPUB are the relevant standards for sourcing. A newsblog can be used like any RS, of course any reader comments are strictly off-limits. A personal blog is very restricted, just factual non-self-serving comments about the blogger himself, or things the blogger has established expertise in (through traditional publishing/academia/etc), and never about any third-party BLP. Choor monster (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Notable enough for an article at all?

Short Version: This article reads like resume fluff.

Long Version: The more I investigate this article, the worse things get. I have been unable to verify any of the info about Psykosonik, apart from the fact that he was a member from 92-93. The article on Pyskosonik makes no mention of hitting the Dance Top-40, nor the Minnesota Music Award for the Mortal Kombat song. To make matters worse, the track in question (Unlearn) was not released until 1995, about 2 years after Beale's departure from the band. If he is credited on this track, I have been unable to verify it.

I'm going to remove all the Psykosonik info, except for the fact that he was a member from 92-93. However, I pretty sure this article should be deleted. The only info here that is verifiable is the fact that he was in Psykosonik, and the fact that he started Fenris Wolf and published a handful of games. On the music side, I don't think that being an early, brief member of a marginally successful band makes someone notable enough for their own article, especially if they didn't play a significant role in that marginal success. But even then, probably not. On the gaming side, I think its safe to say Fenris Wolf is rather questionable as a notable accomplishment. Their games get almost zero mention in any gaming press, apart from the occasional interview with Beale, talking about either how successful they are, or about how "God told him to make Christian games". His games have nearly fallen off the gaming radar completely, and the few sources that I can even find talking about them, basically ridicule them as abject, total failures, not even worthy of the bargain-bin.

If no one speaks up in the next few days, I'm going to nominate this for deletion. Messiahxi (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I also deleted a part talking about how Fenris Wolf was "Known for their bundling...etc". If they were known for that, it should be easy to verify. Messiahxi (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think you're missing the point as to why he's notable. Even if those other accomplishments are as dubious as you claim (I'm not convinced, by the way), he is a somewhat accomplished writer whose recent book made it up to 65 on Amazon. Also, he is a rather well known columnist on WND, which, despite its questionable credibility, is a pretty popular site (not to mention the time in syndication). So while perhaps the article should focus more on his writing, I couldn't disagree with you more on the question of if it should be deleted completely or not, although I strongly suspect it would fail at any attempt at deletion anyway Kika chuck (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will give you the point about the lastest book. turns out it is selling. However, it needs to be mentioned in this article in order to contribute to his notability. its not my job to prove "those other accomplishments" as dubious. I'm not the one making these claims. They should be verifiable. Have at it! try to verify any of the things I deleted. perhaps you will have better luck. Personally, I'm not totally sold on deletion either, but I think it should be considered. re-read WP:BIO, and he seems to fall dangerously close to the line. What slot does one need to achieve on Amazon to qualify?

If it doesn't warrant deletion, after all the junk is removed, we are left with a very short article with some very unnotable bullets. #68 on Amazon notwithstanding. Messiahxi (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with deletion. It's a non-article about someone with an over-inflated sense of self-importance. Is publication of a book on Amazon along with some vile opinion on women's rights and Mexican immigration reason enough to get a page on Wikipedia? The only justification for retaining the article might be for the controversy section which serves as worthy public notice of the unpleasant views held by this individual. MonoApe (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with deletion too. Now that all of the unsourced material and sourced material with which an editor disagrees is removed, there's simply nothing notable there. I don't think Wikipedia is in the business of deciding what views are unpleasant and what are not, so there's no reason not to delete it.Xday (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a newbie (don't bite me) with an interest in music. I removed some of the items from the Discography section - a free CD mixed-artist compilation on which Psykosonik had one track, and two releases which came after Beale had left the band. Xday has now reverted those items on the basis that Beale has a songwriting credit on them. Discographies are related to recording artists, not songwriters (otherwise Paul McCartney's discography would include millions of entries while Britney Spears would include none). Can somebody clarify the policy on this - I'm inclined to remove them again but I don't want to break guidelines?Choppyd (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the songs which show later release dates were recorded earlier when Beale was a member of the band. Both Beale and Larson were members of Psykosonik when "Unlearn" was recorded. The only Psykosonik CD with which they were not involved was "Spiritual Machine". The song "Panik Kontrol" should also be included in this discography, as it is on the "Welcome to My Mind" CD single and was clearly recorded when Beale was a member of the band. "Sunyata" isn't even a Psykosonik song, it's a Basic Pleasure Model song that Beale and Sebastien wrote together.Xday (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Beale's work in Psykosonik and his work as an author and columnist do qualify him for a Wikipedia article. That being said, this article shouldn't turn into a "public notice of the unpleasant views held by this individual." There's more information that can be provided; there's almost nothing about his book The Irrational Atheist, which is probably his most notable accomplishment lately. --75.82.130.33 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Beale is certainly notable for his outlandish public behavior and publicly expressed sentiments regarding national socialism, womens' rights and gas vans for illegal immigrants. If you collated all of this into one place, though, there wouldn't be any room for the fluff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.63.135 (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I blundered into this article about someone I'd never heard of before in my life, and came to the talk section to see if the blatant puffery was being dealt with. Instead I find this section which tells me that even after being flagged for what it is seven years ago, this thing still stands here as a testament to Wikipedia's inability to handle self-aggrandizement and likely sock puppetry. A subject like this would only be worth 25 words tops if it wasn't so easy to use Wikipedia to astroturf notoriety. Well done. I'll go back to watching from the sidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.26.108 (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Racial Views

In case anyone here is curious as to whether Vox Day is a racist or not, I think the following make it quite obvious: [3] [4] Stonemason89 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Or how about this doozy, from [5] in which Beale writes:

the only logical solution is to end racism once and for all by forcibly aborting every Black, Mexican and Asian pregnancy.

Or his blogroll [6]; take a close look and you'll see that it contains a link to a blog (apparently now defunct, as the link is dead) called "BNP and Me". Hmm, British National Party reference, anyone?

Still think Vox Day isn't a white nationalist? Stonemason89 (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Tisk, tisk; lies make baby Jesus cry.

"Amynda is a disgusting, morally perverted human being. ... Just to explore the insanity of her position, I note that if abortion is a moral good, and racism is evil, (both positions publicly espoused by this walking, talking cancer on cankles), then the only logical solution is to end racism once and for all by forcibly aborting every Black, Mexican and Asian pregnancy. While it's hard not to think of the justice that would be served in jamming a sharpened Dyson extension into Amynda's eye and sucking out what passes for her brain, I'm forced to remind myself that unlike her, I don't believe in human and sub-human classes of homo sapiens; even evil feminist cretins possess God-given free will and freedom of speech. And by Amynda's twisted 'morality', such a post-natal abortion would even be a morally positive act, since she also declares that 'pleasure is a moral good'."

Just look at what a little context can do. Makes me wonder what a little context could do for the rest of the quotations in the article. I also note that Beale has written of the BNP thusly: "The BNP are sound on the EU, but that's about it."[7] So, again, shame on you Stonemason89. Eugene (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The quote was taken out of context, true ... but the context shows that he's even worse than what was said of him. By all means add more of this to the article. And where is mention of his prominent father? -- 98.108.195.85 (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We've certainly learned something, all right -- about you. Vox Day isn't even white, FFS. This is just the usual progressive malarkey of desperately mining any defense of Western values for hidden nuggets of "white racism" while simultaneously insisting that white need to "check their privilege" and all races other than white (and sometimes Asian) deserve special treatment -- or as we used to call it, overt racism. It's really unfortunate this level of irrational oikophobic delusion has become so embedded in society that Zimmerman could be called a "white Hispanic" and Vox Day a "white nationalist" without being laughed out of the room. 67.162.33.7 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP concerns

User:Kelly removed the line containing "He has expressed his opposition to the education of women, and support for the Taliban's shooting of education activist Malala Yousafzai" but only said BLP concerns -- what possible BLP concerns are there? He said this, he's proud he says that as he never took it back as far as I know (and still has it on his site), and it's consistent with many other things he has said. That particular comment of his has been mentioned in reliable sources about the Hugo Awards nominations scandal. If you think it violates BLP you will need to be more specific about your arguments. It is a notable demonstration of his viewpoints, and removing it despite the news coverage doesn't make a lot of sense. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A website named "We Hunted The Mammoth" doesn't seem to be enough of a reliable source for such a controversial claim. The other source given, Day's blog, doesn't mention Yousafzai. Kelly ^hi! 15:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

From his blog: "Ironically, in light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban's attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable." http://www.donotlink.com/framed?6695 The man is deliberately offensive. I don't see why we should hide this in an encyclopedia. --Thalia42 (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. WeldNeck (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have read that. This is neither opinion nor unsourced. It comes directly from the person. Hard to dispute either its accuracy or its relevance.--Thalia42 (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

To get from the statement that was removed, from the subjects own words, requires synthesis or original resource. If there is a reliable source that states an opinion on what the subject thinks, you can reference that in terms of "XXXX source says of Beale's views 'Y'". If there is a quote from the subject which very clearly supports what you would like to include for this information, quote that. However, short of a sentence from the author that says 'I support the Taliban's shooting of education activist Malala Yousafzai', or someone else quoting the subject saying that, it probably violates RS, BLP and likely NPOV as well. Especially with BLP, sourcing especially on items of controversey, must be impeccable. No synthesis, no original research. Please work hard to get NPOV information that is well sourced into this article. Kennedy Trengove (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. WeldNeck (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That Beale says things like this is not subject to serious dispute, especially considering how easy it is to quote him on it. Indeed, it's his main claim to notoriety. Find a better authority rather than whitewashing the article. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If its his main claim to notoriety, you shouldn't have any problem finding them mentioned in a reliable secondary source. Good luck with that. WeldNeck (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Women's Suffrage

The "Views" Section Makes the claim that the subject is against women's suffrage, however it does not give any evidence or even have a "citation needed" tag.

Normally this would probably just merit a citation needed tag but in this case it is seemingly intended as a pejorative, hence the POV tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTartle (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/04/why-women-shouldnt-vote-reason-345-346.html --12.131.208.26 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Suffrage is the right to vote. The linked article does not claim that women should not have the right to vote. The title implies that women shouldn't vote.Kennedy Trengove (talk)

The blog contains the following passage: Some people think the Founding Fathers had never even considered the thought of allowing women to vote, that it was just a historical oversight on the part of some unconsciously sexist men. I suspect that they knew perfectly well what they were doing, given the obvious connection between the female franchise and the West's continental drift into socialism. This implies that not allowing women to vote was a deliberate decision which he agrees with, given that he suspects that they knew perfectly well what they were doing. Only going by the title allows for a narrower interpretation of what is contained in the blog. Autarch (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

All that the selected passage demonstrates is that the subject believes something unverifiable about a group of third parties who have been dead for a few hundred years. Even if this wasn't BLP, deducing that information from the quoted selection would violate NPOV and original research polices. Kennedy Trengove (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"He has written that women should be deprived of the vote", in the New Republic. Good enough? DS (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks good to me. You should take a crack at writing it up. Kennedy Trengove (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP again

He's on record as having said everything attributed to him. See "Crying BLP": http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Crying_%22BLP!%22 I'll try another revision.

No, you wont. You shall place the proposed text here in talk where it will be discussed and agreed upon before placing it into the article. Information directly from Beale's blog must include a secondary source for notability unless its basic biographical stuff about him. WeldNeck (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thats much better, but I still reported you because thats your 5th revert of the day and should have known the material was not compliant with WP:BLP. WeldNeck (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@WeldNeck, your dogged defense here has the air of the partisan. The controversy revolving around Beale is hardly undocumented, and if you know enough about him to keep an eye on the article, then surely you know that. Concern for BLP standards is all well and good, but you could, after all, do a little of the research work yourself rather than simply protecting the article from negative coverage. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I could do a lot of things if I had some money. WeldNeck (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said before

I addressed this specific issue last year, on this very talk page. Mr. Beale has a great many views on a great many subjects, but the only ones which should be mentioned here are the ones which have received significant external attention. And to forestall further quibbling, let's say that "significant" means "from a publication which is already the subject of a Wikipedia article". DS (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And here we are - he's been interviewed at length on the David Pakman Show. I don't have 45 minutes to watch it right now, but would anyone like to see if there's anything else here which might be worth adding? DS (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Until/unless the interview generates other reliable sources referencing it, it should probably not be used, as this is a BLP and the interview is a primary source. Kennedy Trengove (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but the interview discusses some statements he made in (for instance) 2005. Hm? DS (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thalia42 and BLP/NPOV problems

There have been a few reverts or edits that keep coming around. After last weeks protection and warnings being handed out, I was hoping collaboration could happen so that this article may start to get some stability. Repeatedly adding unsourced characterizations about the subject is problematic for BLP. There is substantial reliable sources out there, if you work a little you can probably find appropriate quotes and sources to allow you to get across the point/points you would like made. Please lets try to have some effort in following the guidelines of BLP and keep this article unlocked and moving forward. Kennedy Trengove (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I have sourced everything I have added. I'm happy to add more sources if you wish, but if you call me out, at least give an example of something I edited that you are objecting to. And as a side note, I have reverted exactly zero times on this article.--Thalia42 (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Hugo Nominations

It is factually correct but misleading to list the Hugo Nominations without including the fact that he effectively ran a slate to nominate himself for awards. There is a lot of sources that provide this data, so I don't see why it was removed. Please don't say "BLP," given all the sourcing. Misleading readers is problematic too.

From the man himself: voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/rabid-puppies-2015.html

The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/18/hugo-award-hijack-just-proves-progressives-right

The Boston Globe: http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2015/04/16/time-muzzle-sad-puppies-and-other-excluder-groups/4swLpULR6qaX7svr0RwUpL/story.html

His no-longer-buddies about why his slate nominations were not OK: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/we-are-not-rabid/

Some analysis: http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/04/14/sad-puppy-data-analysis/ --Thalia42 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The "problem" is not the content or the links, but the wording and the writing. The information about a slate belongs in the article, but probably in it's own section related to the 2015 awards controversey. Writing the information using non-NPOV words like "however" and "tainted", when not quoted, means that the information has come from somewhere, and that information needs to conveyed without violating BLP and NPOV standards. Being timely and being first isn't a reason to ignore the standards of the project. I will take a stab at rewriting the information to conform to NPOV and BLP and you can edit if you don't find agreeable, okay? Kennedy Trengove (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on further review, I am going to excise the information you have put. This is duplicated from a better written sentence. I don't think it belongs in the section that simply lists nominations. Whatever anyone has of an opinion on the matter, those opinions are not facts. The 2015 Hugo Award section has the "news" tag, but really it's not news - the controversey is news, but the nominations are a thing that happened in the past, and so it's customary to list to those things as historical fact when they are, and when they are sourced, which they are. If you would like include the information about "most people", you should find a source that quotes that information, and reference that. Kennedy Trengove (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying someone was nominated, without mentioning the issue with that nomination is misleading, though. I don't think you can list the nominations "simply" without misleading the reader. The Hugo Award selections are the news, the fact that these slates rewrote the nominees completely IS news, and news worthy, as the links above prove. I'm happy to rephrase as you wish, but I don't think it's reasonable to leave the nominations without noting that they were the direct result of something that many people in the industry have called unethical, though not illegal.--Thalia42 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact is what it is. The controversy, if it's notable, should be part of the article in my opinion, and I have made a specific section for it and preserved that information and the links. There is no asterisk or note or other thing that is applied to the nomination in an official way. WP is a long-term project, news and discussion will come and go, but the nomination (and later, whoever wins the award, if anyone) will be there forever. It is just raw information, and listing it as a historical fact makes sense to me. Kennedy Trengove (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

To me, that's like saying that Russia won more gold medals than the US in the 1980 Olympics without noting that the US boycotted that year. I still think that it's misleading to have the nominations without the context. But the controversy description now, in a separate item, is a reasonable compromise. Thalia42 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved, revisions merged accordingly. Harej (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Theodore Beale → Vox Day – Per WP:COMMONNAME, this person goes publicly by the name "Vox Day" on authored works, and is referred to as such by the news media and in other places. For instance, see the "editor" categories in this year's Hugo Award nominations.[8] Kelly ^hi! 15:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note - there was a previous page at Vox Day that was blanked and turned into a redirect to this one - apparently this person once had two articles at the same time. The two pages should probably be merged rather than the old one simply deleted. Kelly ^hi! 16:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• NOTE Vox Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was merged to Theodore Beale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 13 June 2007‎ ; WP:MAD the edit histor at "Vox Day" cannot be deleted, if this rename goes through, the edit history at "Vox Day" will need to be preserved. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Weak support. Beale publishes under the name "Vox Day", so it's a little bit more recognizable than his real name, but in this case I think that either would be acceptable. Apparently he originally used the pseudonym for reasons of privacy, but his identity is public at this point. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The thing is, he doesn't always use the Vox Day name. A number of his books use his real name, I imagine his software development work does as well as that period of his life predates the name, his blog on Black Gate used his real name... I don't know that it quite fits the WP:COMMONNAME rules, as he's known by different people under different names. DreamGuy (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  We do frequently list authors by their pen names if that is what they are best known by - for instance Lester del Rey or Murray Leinster, even when they have published by other names or their real name. Also, by a pure count of Google hits, Vox Day beats Theodore Beale by a mile. Finally, the Wikipedia community seems to have a presumption lately for using the name the person prefers to be known by, despite media usage, the best example probably being Chelsea Manning. I do agree "Theodore Beale" should remain a redirect to "Vox Day". Kelly ^hi! 18:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  Chelsea Manning is an entirely different case, and one I'm sure Theo would love to be compared to. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, different circumstances, but the same policies apply. Per WP:NC and WP:COMMONNAME we should be using the title most likely to be recognized by the casual reader and the name most often used by reliable sources. The majority of the sources in this article refer to the subject as "Vox Day". Kelly ^hi! 15:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. Google hits, and a more detailed analysis using Google Trends, convincingly support the WP:COMMONNAME claim. Further, his name appears as "Vox Day" on the Hugo nomination ballot, and even his opponents appear to refer to him thus consistently. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support since Beale is much better known by his pen name than by his birth name. He is certainly known in the news, especially the "rabid puppies" ordeal as Vox Day, and has been called "Day" by George R.R. Martin and not "Beale".--TMD Talk Page. 21:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support. It is a pseudonym, and we usually use preferred pseudonyms (see James Triptree, Jr.) The pseudonym is more recognizable than his real name, but in this case I think that either would be acceptable. --Thalia42 (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misattribution

The Electrolite post about Beale being on the Nebula Jury is by Patrick Nielsen Hayden, not Teresa Nielsen Hayden. 158.222.238.217 (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Please justify the toilet quote

This is only an encyclopedic article about VD, not a detailed biography. The exact justifications VD gives to explain himself are of little interest. The quotation of interest is the one that led to the expulsion vote, not what he says later about it. Hence, UNDUE says we don't include it, unless RS's pick up on it and run with it. Choor monster (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Name

There's no mention of the source of the pen name. I assume "Vox Day" is a punning reference to the saying "vox populi, vox dei," but it would be good to have a reference. Anyone motivated? If it didn't probably require reading through a bunch of his writings, I'd look for it myself.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 13:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume [9] suffices, although it doesn't mention the Latin original. Note that his blog is titled "Vox Popoli", so frankly, I see nothing OR about something like "Vox Popoli/Vox Day is a pun on the Latin saying Vox populi, vox dei". We would need an RS to actually state that was VD's deliberate pun. Choor monster (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel like there is way to mention it's possibly a reference to that. something like 'his blog is called vox populi, perhaps in reference to the latin saying...'Suppafly (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Feud" with John Scalzi

To describe Beale's relationship with John Scalzi as a feud is misleading. A better description would be "Internet stalking". Beal makes frequent negative (and sometimes arguably libelous) mention of Scalzi on his (Beale's) blog, while on his own blog Scalzi occasionally alludes to Beale's actions when the public attention becomes impossible to ignore, but he refuses to call Beale by either name or pen name. Given that this is something initiated and fueled by Beal but which Scalzi clearly tries to avoid, it is unfair to describe this as a feud, especially as the interaction between the two is almost always unidirectional. For that reason I changed the headline from "Feud with John Scalzi" to "Antipathy towards John Scalzi" and text in the paragraph from "feud with" to "criticism of". These at least are neutral descriptions.AnneTG (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Feud is a common way to talk about such things. Your changes have made it more confusing, not less. The fact that Scalzi uses these opportunities to raise money for charity is in contrast to your claim that it's unidirectional. Suppafly (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No, "feud" is not the common way to talk about this sort of thing, because that word implies something that is fueled by both parties, whereas this is something that one party perpetuates and the other only occasionally and indirectly responds to. I didn't say it was unidirectional, full stop - I said it was "almost always unidirectional". Scalzi has refused to use Beale's name, while Beale not only constantly criticizes Scalzi by name but has even repeatedly called him "the rapist John Scalzi" (because of a fictional character in a political piece Scalzi once wrote). Because Scalzi is a public figure, and because Beale persists in criticizing Scalzi to such a degree that to ignore it would be disingenuous, sometimes Scalzi mentions the fact that there someone out there "who is obsessed with me."

As for my changes making it more confusing -- there is nothing confusing about the terms "antipathy" or "criticism". They are generously neutral descriptions of what most people would think it more fair to describe as harassment.AnneTG (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, "feud" pretty much papers over the fact that this is a one-way obsession. Choor monster (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

How would you feel about 'Conflict with' to echo the other Conflict with section? "Antipathy towards" is a weird was to phrase it. Suppafly (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems my plan to solve the problem by removing the section in question did not go down so well. I personally dont see why this warrants a specific section unless we can get more than one source. This seems like something which is really big in the blogosphere, but reliable sources don't seem to have touched on so much. Brustopher (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Prior Discussion of Mr. Vox Day has been archived

You can find the archive here.

--Thalia42 (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer that someone other than you does any archiving that may be necessary, since the archived discussion contains a lot of discussion regarding your unsourced claims that keep getting reverted. I know that you don't feel your edits are wrong, but archiving the discussion of them, has the appearance of impropriety. Suppafly (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't archive it. I looked for a point of discussion in Talk, and couldn't find it and then trolled through the history of Talk to find it was auto-archived. I placed a link here so that others would find the archive more easily. As to my "unsourced claims" I find it rather depressing that no one tells me WHICH of my claims are unsourced. I was also accused of reverting, which I have never done. Look through the history.--Thalia42 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As a side note, I would like to know why people are attributing edits to me. Look at the history and you will find none of what I'm accused of.Thalia42 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Old discussions are archived by a bot, which is standard practice for talk pages. There's a link to the archive in the talk page header, along with a box to search the archives. Kelly ^hi! 22:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)