Talk:Daniel Tammet

message: Can anybody find a reliable primary source (an entry in a book of records or a database) that supports the claims of Tammet setting the European record in the recitation of Pi? As far as I know, his claim for the record was eventually rejected. The multiple sources listed in the article only lead to some media coverage after the attempt and before the official revision. The primary source would be very easy to add if it existed and it should be the very first of the references. I suggest that these controversial claims should be removed unless a primary source can be provided. JaRa72 (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary source needed for Pi record

message: The article gives the impression that Prof Snyder is at the Australian National University (arguably Australia's top university). I believe this is not true. All sources I can find state he's at the University of Sydney. The location of the "Centre for the Mind" is anyone's guess, but the "contact details for its website are near the University of Sydney in NSW while the ANU is in Canberra in the ACT.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.204.64 (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he certainly was at the ANU, in the late 1980s.  He was (made himself to be) a recognisable figure around campus, riding his bicycle shirtless - deeply tanned bony body, aqualine nose, and wild Einstein-style hair. 115.64.142.162 (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Prof Allan Snyder at ANU?

message: http://www.pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/details/tammet.html
Please explain?
: This is news to me.  It may be true that there was an error someplace in the recitation, even though he recited 22,514 digits. We should check this carefully (see WP:BLP), as many references cite the 22,514 number. Edhubbard (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article seems to utterly contradict what's claimed at the first link I gave, but what's the source of the info about Tammet Pi recitation? - it's in a US newspaper and the record was supposed to have been done in the UK:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/garden/15savant.html  The NYTimes article includes a claim that the recitation was monitored by people from "Oxford Brookes University", which is apparently a real university in Oxford, UK, but not the well-known University of Oxford, while a page that looks like it is from the University of Oxford verifies that it all happened at a museum which is also a department of University of Oxford. I guess it's not impossible, but it's a mite confusing. http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2004/040315_1.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.231.124 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources are the ones currently in the article as 17 and 18: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2004/040315_1.html, http://pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/memo/index.html.  In addition, you can search for the "BrainMan" documentary, which had a camera crew there rolling the whole time (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4913196365903075662, starting at 4:55).  During the filming, there was no one that stood up and said, "this is an error".  So, if we assume that all of the sources are reporting to the best of their knowledge, this error went uncaught for some time years.  However, the website you've listed above is the only one saying this, so we'll probably need some additional confirmation of this (see WP:RS and WP:BLP).  Edhubbard (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Everything I've seen suggests that this was a serious, verified record attempt.  In particular, as noted in the references and in the video, there were at least two checkers there (maybe even three or more), verifying that Tammett was reciting pi correctly, which according to the only website that seems to be tracking this, is what they require for an official record attempt ().  The video does show conspicuous failures when Tammett was in Las Vegas, so I don't think it's so far-fetched that they would have mentioned it if he had failed.  Similarly, the press releases, for example, from Oxford and in the New York Times and other places wouldn't have come out if someone had stood up *at the time* and said that there was an error.  Major outlets, like the NYT, and so on have a duty to get it right, and so have fact checkers.  This why we here in wikipedia count NYT times and other major papers as WP:RS.  But, if this source is correct that there was an error that was identified after the attempt, we should be able to find other sources for it too. Edhubbard (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pi Record? 

message: There appears to be verifiable evidence Tammet is a trained mnemonist.
*Wayback Machine (which archives snapshots of website content) evidences (from Tammet's own early website in 2001) Tammet studied and used mnemonic memory techniques, and sold a course based on mnemonic memory techniques.
Source:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.61.121 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where was this test documented? You added these quotes to the article, but only provided a "Statements specifically authored by scientists in Talk Page" as your source. A Wikipedia talk page obviously isn't a reliable source, we should cite the document you're quoting. --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: E.Hubbard's comments, along with a long discussion critical of the Wikipedia article, were deleted by Off2riorob. Here is a link to the deleted information. Bill121212 (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trained Mnemonist - Yes/No? 

message: I see one or two 'conspiracy theorists' have (once again?) taken to obsessively editing this article to their point of view. Please note Wikipedia's strict rules regarding living persons biographical articles:
No original research No_original_research 
In particular: "Any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources" and "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." 
Foer's chapter specifically discounts the likelihood that Tammet has 'faked' anything:
"If Daniel had concocted his story of being a natural savant, it would have required a degree of mendacity that I couldn’t quite bring myself to believe he possessed"(Page 189).
Foer equally disavows any of the certainty that a few here like to attribute to him:
"The one thing I know I can say for certain about him (Tammet) is that he is exceptionally bright” (page 193). 
In fact, no reliable published source has specifically claimed that Tammet has lied or faked (very serious allegations, with potentially important legal and other consequences) at all. 
Similarly, 'conspiracy theorist' claims about documentary makers faking scenes, or media reports lying about Tammet's Pi performance etc. clearly also constitute original research. 
Neutral Point of View
"This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it" and "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." 
Foer's perspective represents a tiny minority viewpoint, alone among the hundreds of reliable sources in published media and the scientific community. To dedicate an entire section of the article to Foer's claims would seriously distort the article's balance, in contravention of Wikipedia's rules. 
Wikipedia is not a forum
"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages" and:
"Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person". 
Wikipedia is not a democracy
"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary, but not exclusive, method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." 
Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oughtprice99. Contributions history 100% on Tammet. Aprrox. 60 edits in article. Incessant removal of verifiably sourced material. Suspicious.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.118.41 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Many people told you to sign at the end, but you do not conform. If you do not respect the rules, you are not welcome.--119.173.188.106 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone who forgets to sign their comments is still welcome. Editors should comment on the content, not on the contributor, though. "I think this guy is suspicious!" is not a useful rebuttal of the points he makes. --McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fæ said, "If you believe there is conflict of interest, please raise it for review at WP:COIN." Bill121212 (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Fæ is complaining to wiki admins about people using anonymous IP addresses on this article. It would be better to create an account and login before criticizing the article. It's interesting that Off2riorob deleted a huge section of this talk page on the some day that the review of the talk page was requested. Bill121212 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I raised the issue of this page having poorly sourced potential BLP violations on BLPN at Wikipedia:BLPN#Daniel_Tammet for independent review. This is not the same thing as asking for admin intervention and although I have mentioned that these issues seem to be related to the use of anon IPs, this is not the same as complaining that anon IPs are contributing here. It is, however, self evident that if the same person is using different anon IPs on a discussion page, it becomes rapidly confusing to follow connected discussions. I have not reviewed Off2riorob's recent actions. --Fæ (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Rob archived older discussions. I don't think he deleted anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the choice of words. "Hid" is a better description. We are still actively discussing that content. Off2riorob said he didn't read the book in question, so he shouldn't be blocking additions to the page. There are two sources that should be added to the wiki page: Tammet's old archived website and Moonwalking with Einstein. There is no reason not to add them, and the only two users blocking it are Oughtprice99 and Off2riorob. Most everyone else is for their addition. See the content that Off2riorob removed. Bill121212 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder of Wikipedia's rules regarding Living Persons Biographical articles 

message: Due to the recent edit war on this article and in consideration of an apparent history of previous disputes on similar lines, I have fully protected it for a week. Please use  to propose and discuss changes and take note of The three-revert rule which has already been broken. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit protection 

message: In Tammet’s own website from 2001, he states during school using “these tried-and-tested techniques” to improve exam performance. http://web.archive.org/web/20010623043910/http://www.danieltammet.com/fr_about000.htm
Reliably sourced and exact.188.29.13.109 (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Tammet's 2001 old website in article 

message: The article as it stands today mentions that Tammet's face memory ability was tested by Baron-Cohen and team (using an unnamed test) and found to be impaired, but it fails to mention that Tammet's face memory ability was also tested by Maguire, Valentine et al in their study of World Memory Championship participants, and I found nothing in that paper to suggest that there was a member of the group of subjects who had impaired face memory. One also needs to consider that Tammet reportedly got a gold medal in a World Memory Championship event titled "names and faces", and also two early press stories claiming that Tammet has face memory consistent with "super-recognizer" ability. At least one of these conflicting reports must be untrue. A careful reading of Tammet's first autobiography also provides reason to feel skepticism about Tammet's claims that he has a face recognition impairment. Would a prosopagnosic use the phrase "a familiar face" to describe an old friend?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 124.150.32.120. This article is Wikipedia at its worst. Bill121212 (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of balance in reporting of face memory testing and ability of Tammet

message: Karen Ammond from the PR firm KBC Media which Tammet has, by KBC Media's own account, been represented by since 2001, was also an Associate Producer of the documentary Brainman that arguably launched Tammet's career and reputation in the worlds of science and also in the popular eye. This is a potential conflict of interest, and it also goes against what the man in the street would expect from a documentary. Documentaries are generally understood to represent a non-commercial and non-fictional treatment of a subject. Science documentaries are definitely not expected to be creations of a PR person or to act as promotional vehicles. It has been many years since I bothered to actually edit Wikipedia, so don't look to me to do this work, but I'm mentioning it here for at least some readers to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree that it should be mentioned in the article. It's obvious that this Wikipedia page is missing a lot of important information. Bill121212 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dual roles of Karen Ammond and KBC Media need to be mentioned in this article

message: Anon IP 188.28/9... continues to make persistant edits to article (13 consecutive edits in a 5-hour period on 11 Dec) with as sole reference the Foer book. I kindly ask him to refrain from further edits until editors have had the chance to discuss and see what consensus can be found.
188.28/9... is attempting to reproduce one of the claims made in the book, namely that Tammet once worked as a 'psychic' and now 'regrets' having done so. I have several reservations about reproducing this claim in a BLP article:
* Foer's perspective on Tammet is clearly hostile and minority. Previous discussions including Enchanter, off2riorob, EdHubbard (etc.) reached a consensus that Foer's perspective should be incorporated into the article in a sensitive and marginal way to avoid undue weight. The book's title, author, and viewpoint are already listed in article. Cherry picking specific claims from it in addition would appear to go against this existing editorial consensus.
* Revisions to a BLP article typically require multiple reliable published secondary sources. For example few, if any, claims in article draw exclusively from Tammet's published works. The same principle would appear to be at least equally applicable to Foer's book, for which no such sources exist - save for a negative comment in a review by a major psychologist in the New York Times. 
* The specific claim is of a highly sensitive, contentious, and potentially defamatory nature. No other secondary source even hints at it. BLP article rules would seem to require multiple reliable published secondary sources before reproducing such a claim. 
For these reasons I have undone the edit and requested page protection while discussion is underway. 
Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Misleading. Foer's book has been reviewed in various publications.--211.5.17.178 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinions Please 

message: Recently added (and reverted) ref is quite a good research.--211.5.16.49 (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great read 

message: This page has been protected following my repeated and detailed requests to the living persons bio noticeboard. Unfortunately the current version preserves all the latest edits by the anon user in question, and which breach Wikipedia's guidelines for living person bio articles. 
-A sentence lifted out of context from subject's memoir and constitutes original research. This should therefore be removed. 
-User has removed referenced statement that subject 'says' he speaks ten languages (reference comes from subject's memoir). User claims the statement is not verifiable - this is original research. Previous version ought to be restored.
-User claims subject gave an interview in Icelandic for 'a few minutes' - original research. It is also inaccurate as the spoken Icelandic actually says 'next minutes' and subtitle reads 'next few minutes'. No published secondary source states interview duration. 
-Final edit removes referenced statements from subject's book or blog, or other media articles that refer to these, conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. User has removed these without consensus. Please restore. 
User's (long-running) pattern (under several aliases/IP addresses) of editing behavior constitutes vandalism. This is at least the third time that the article has been edit protected because of it. 
Oughtprice99 (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:WRONGVERSION. mabdul 10:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Ok, sorry, I want to try to explain it better. As described in WP:PREFER - a part of our protecting policy - full protection because of edit warring / a content dispute, there is never a right version. One of the parties always claims that the wrong version is the current version. As you were the only contributor here proposing that edit, I safely can cite the PREFER link: "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". So, get a consensus and especially try to settle down that discussion with that user. And keep always in mind: we have no deadline! mabdul 10:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

text: you appear to have created a Single-purpose account for this article, would you like to explain why you feel you needed to do this? Do not feel obliged to answer, and I'm sorry if this might come over as a bit bitey, but given this context it appears unlikely that this is your first time contributing here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 26 April 2012 

message: User 188.28.190.242 has again raised the issue of Foer's viewpoint on Tammet as discussed in his book 'Moonwalking with Einstein'. As old hands will know, this is a long-running issue which previous discussions here have repeatedly sought to settle. 
My own view is that Foer's viewpoint is noteworthy, but minority. Attempts to create a new, dedicated 'criticisms' section therefore threaten article balance: it already incorporates Foer's viewpoint using wording previously agreed here by consensus. 
Specific details from Foer's book concerning Tammet have appeared on some blog pages, but not in any reliable published media reporting. The lack of any secondary sources (and therefore lack of established notability) weighs against their inclusion in the article. 
Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - its undue, opinionated and imo attacking content that is repeatedly being added by the same user under different IP addresses - Youreallycan 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stick to content issues only. Foer's criticisms satisfy notability and relevance requirements. Foer's book covers several pages on Tammet and therefore appears well-documented. Tammet makes several contributions on pages 188-194 approximately. The latest edit by User Saunders captures the essence of Foer's notable opinions. Perhaps use of more direct quotes would be better?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.238.70.70 (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: its undue, opinionated and imo attacking content are all content issues - Youreallycan 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

text: If you want to add large quotes from Foer , I suggest you add them to his own article - As for the 2000 WMC names-and-faces event under a different name? What are the citations for such a claim? - Youreallycan 16:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking Consensus (Foer viewpoint) 

message: The Works section is divided into "Non-fiction" and "Non-fiction, Other". That doesn't make much sense. What is it supposed to mean? Nurg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works section 

message: Should there be a section mentioning Tammet's religious affiliations.  He seems to have associated himself with a number of religious beliefs ranging from Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism and even Islam? 1 2 (Shaun1995 (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tammet's Beliefs 

message: Wikipedia has a policy not to state things that can't be proven but in the "Savantism" section, this article states that Tammet holds the European record for reciting pi from memory to 22,514 digits in 5 hours and 9 minutes. There's no way to prove that he didn't secretly slowly and gruadually memorize them earlier, thus not having the record for how fast he can memorize them.Blackbombchu (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mis-read the passage.  The recitation took 5 hours and 9 minutes, which can be verified, as the entire recitation was monitored and even video-taped.  As you say, there's no way of knowing how long it took him to memorize pi.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.60.8 (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stating something as a fact without proof 

message: "Daniel Tammet: the Boy with the Incredible Story"
By Lili Marlene
ISBN: 9781301533084  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.118.83 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a self-published book: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/288635 This certainly doesn't meet WP:RS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.150.202 (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Source for "alternative story" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Daniel Tammet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant_syndrome/savant_profiles/daniel_tammet
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141028044739/http://www.ox.ac.uk:80/media/news_stories/2004/040315_1.html to http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2004/040315_1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Daniel Tammet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110120105840/http://www.cbc.ca:80/video/ to http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/George_Stroumboulopoulos_Tonight/Season_5/1274049162/ID=12380130343
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is categorized into two competing WP categories (Category:People on the autism spectrum and Category:People with Asperger syndrome). While it is true that a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome (AS) now falls within the diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder, I doubt that the categories are intended to share all the individual subjects with diagnosed AS within both categories. In fact, the Category:People with Asperger syndrome states that "This category is for famous people who were diagnosed with Asperger syndrome" implying that those with AS needn't be included in the newer Category:People on the autism spectrum. Because the subject was diagnosed with AS and not ASD, I will remove the article's categorization within the Category:People on the autism spectrum to make the article and the category more accurate. Revert if consensus desires.2001:558:6008:3B:385B:E88D:95AE:2B57 (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization in competing categories? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Daniel Tammet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923233610/http://www.editions-iconoclaste.fr/spip.php?article1971 to http://www.editions-iconoclaste.fr/spip.php?article1971
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923233610/http://www.editions-iconoclaste.fr/spip.php?article1971 to http://www.editions-iconoclaste.fr/spip.php?article1971
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are a couple of Christianity categories included in the article, but there are no references to his religious beliefs in the article text, nor citations supporting the categories.—ukexpat (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity categories 

message: This article is a bit confusing and muddled. From what I can tell his chief notability is due to his savantism, something to do with his memory, but the lede mostly just talks about that he wrote some autobiographies detailing his Aspergers Syndrome. Can we make it a bit clearer how he became notable? Ashmoo (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability