Talk:Oliver DeMille

message: See the policy page, WP:OR. This text is so tedious and the subject matter (confirming someone's CV) is so intricate that the article just smells like OR. Because the article is overlong and tediously written and has so many dozens of footnotes, it's extremely time consuming to determine which statements are OR. In any case, the article is 90 percent about investigating his CV. Hurmata (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is tedious, but it is not original research. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I can see how ref #8 is problematic. However, I don't see how a chronological list of degrees could possibly be POV. There are so many different accounts from different sources that a matrix seems to make the most sense for presenting the different degrees and chronologies. Trying to write from a neutral perspective, I wouldn't be sure which account of the degrees to believe, so I simply included all of them. Other than possibly dropping the one with ref #8, I really don't see how it could get any more npov. Thoughts? --TrustTruth (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm basing my concern on the comment below: "WP:Original Research, trying to find inconsistencies in the various biographical accounts and use it against him.  This too is unacceptable."  I'm sort of new to this; but based on my limited experience, it seems like the chart fits that description.  Seems like a discussion of his dalliance with spurious educational institutions is appropriate, and even reference to the fact that he claimed the degrees and later recanted is appropriate; my understanding is that looking for differences in his or others' accounts of his history crosses the line.  Teach me. Ibinthinkin (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we have to be very careful on biographies of living persons. You should look at the past revisions of the article DGG was referring to. He was referring to what amounted to conclusions drawn based on references. The chart documents his curriculum vitae. Period. It does not draw conclusions. There are many inconsistencies in this individual's biographical accounts (could be that the Brooks biography is plain unreliable; a lot of it may not even be attributable to DeMille himself) which were previously documented in the article. They were removed around the time DGG reviewed the article. The curricula vitae listing however does not draw conclusions, it simply states the degrees claimed at different times (and, in the current version, contains none of the diploma mill degrees DeMille himself identified). Are we supposed to drop any reference to his college degrees because it might make him look bad? --TrustTruth (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research tag 

message: I need to finish putting in the references.  I learned how to do the newspaper citations, but I didn't know how to do some of the other stuff; I just ran out of steam for today, and had to close up my desktop--didn't want to start over. I think practically all of the uncited stuff can be referenced back to Brooks' History, or the TJEd books.  TT, can you help put those in?  If not, I'll get to it probably in the morning. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The ed section looks pretty good. I would recommend adding the areas of study for each of the degrees. This information would more fully flesh out past accomplishments and present pursuits. --Drbhh (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Education section 

message: After the article was improved, I did some additional copyediting for conciseness. There are several problems left. 
*Negative criticism must may not come from blogs. If the blogs are from respected major authorities in the subject, and are merely published in the form of blogs, their authority must be absolutely clear. Otherwise, if there is no better source for the criticism it must be removed. 
*Exact bibliographic information for the remaining publications must be given. 
*The high school paragraph is still a little cluttered. I am not clear about the Air force Academy/West Point--what is the exact meaning of "nominated" here? The details in the quote are not necessary as they repeat the article, condense one or the other. DGG (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to reduce the HS material to the usual length myself. I left the details in the footnoted quote. DGG (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the bibliographic info and removed the link to the blog. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: I have blanked this section, because we do not speculate on wiki about the true identity of editors, nor do we ask each other who we really are.  I warn those involved not to resume this.   DGG (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest 

message: This is another area that needs some work. I think it should be mentioned that Dr. DeMille was one of the first three faculty members of GW. I also think that the mission statement/purpose of GWC is out of place here since it really has no relation to his professional life (I would remove it myself but I don't want to mess up the footnotes). Lastly, I think that DeMille's current contributions to the field of education and political philosophy should be added (e.g. his leadership roles within the homeschool community). I know many people who have been significantly impacted by his work in this area. --Drbhh (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional Life 

message: As the discussions on this page have progressed, I have begun to question more and more the notability of DeMille in the first place. He is principally known for his book / methodology, A Thomas Jefferson Education, so I propose that this article be merged into that one and invite discussion on the idea. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that merging the two articles would be a very poor idea as DeMille and TJEd are two different topics of interest, though clearly related.  The WP article A Thomas Jefferson Education is bare bones, but could be made into a fine article on the book itself and deserves its own page separate from DeMille.  I do not expect an analysis of The Chronicles of Narnia when I search for CS Lewis.  I expect to find a link to the book on the author's page and vis versa.  2ewrap (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: DeMille as a subject doesn't really exist without TJEd, and making the move to that article would have a side-benefit of giving the TJEd article its due. He was one of the founders of GWU, and now only sits on the board (and is a mentor), so that entity exists independent of him, and should have its own article. It is not uncommon to put a redirect of a person's name to the work / organization that person is most associated with. See Thomas James Kirk for example. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability and article merger 

message: The POV tag that has been added will be removed today if a list of specific claims as to why the article is POV here. A tag without a explanation is not legitmate. A tag is only appropriate when an explanation is given so that other editors can either improve the article, demonstrate the tag is without merit, or reach conncensus on controversial points. --StormRider 16:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was given an edit conflict message as I was posting the NPOV section; see below.  --Ibinthinkin (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I don't know who removes a npov tag, but for my part I have no issue with the current form of the article.  --Ibinthinkin (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you added it, if you are satisfied that your concerns have been resolved, feel to remove it yourself. I'm not opposed to the removal. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No further issues on my part

message: His degrees are relevant, whether or not there has been public controversy over them. We customarily include this information for anyone for whom the material is known, and primary sources are acceptable for it. We certainly would include it for an educator. the text should read
::DeMille   holds one degree from an accreddited university, a B.A. in International Relations (1994) from Brigham Young University. His latest CV (2006) also lists three degrees from Coral Ridge Baptist University (CRBU)DeMille (2008)., an unaccredited, correspondence institution which is now defunct. These degrees, a B.A. in Biblical Studies (May 1992), an M.A. in Christian Political Science (December 1992), and a Ph.D. in Religious Education (May 1994) were awarded at the same time or subsequent to his founding of George Wythe College in 1992.,; he also holds a  Juris Doctorate degree from Louisiana-based LaSalle University, received in ???? Brooks (2005), p. 9,  
::The degrees are listed in a slightly different time sequence in his 1999 CV  DeMille (1999), his 2001 CVDeMille (2001). and that for 2002.DeMille (2002). On his 1999 CV, he also includes a  B.A. earned in 1992  from George Wythe College DeMille (1999) , the institution which he founded.  but subsequent curriculum vitae do not list the degree.  
I do not consider the details of the variation all that important, but they could be included rather the summarized by the word "slight".  
I also commented on this and other matters regarding the article in response to a question raised at the [BLP Noticeboard] DGG (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the first paragraph. The second strays slightly into the field of investigative journalism. Why do we need this at all? Have the sources investigated this?--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: AGAIN: the CV's do not list a chronology, and the 1999 CV is listed on site not demonstrably edited by DeMille, so we can only say that CRBU states that he had this degree, not that DeMille includes....  --Ibinthinkin (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there are sources making something of this, we should ignore it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: I think it's time to address the fairly lean professional section.  IMO, DeMille is notable as a public speaker (mostly related to homeschooling), for his association with GWU, and as an author.  GWU has its own site and a WP page, so probably that part doesn't need a lot more. Readers can link elsewhere for detailed info.
Does anyone know of precedents for what you cite for a public speaker?  I mean, do we make a list of the places he's keynoted, or the titles, do we go into the topics he's in demand for, or what?
It seems that other authors have a more detailed list of their publications.  I propose we round that out with more detail.  Thoughts? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his books are of more note, but I do not have a great deal of knowledge about DeMille. When I read about him, his books and his philosphy of learning seem to be highlighted often. I think this is fundamental to why he sought to be founder of a college.--StormRider 18:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  He is really not that notable in and of himself, and certainly not for his public speaking. It is difficult to find anything about him in a third-party publication or newspaper. As far as his publications, there was an extensive listing before you yourself, Ibinthinkin, deleted it with this edit , indicating you had "removed redundant and non-notable content". I am certainly in favor of the list of publications, but it need to be the full list, not just the politically correct list. --TrustTruth (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the benchmark for "notable" that we should use?  Is there some sort of guideline--anything?  --Ibinthinkin (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  professional  

message: I'm not sure why the link to the tjedonline.com website keeps getting removed.  It is owned by DeMilles, and is the location of Oliver's personal blog, recent articles and book reviews,  and other current writings.  Are you saying that unless it's Oliverdemille.com it has no place being listed?  Whereas his notoriety is almost exclusively tied to his work with "TJEd", this link is a relevant and helpful resource for the reader to locate primary information regarding the subject.  What exactly is the objection to listing it here? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An infobox link to tjedonline.com seems more appropriate for the article dedicated to A Thomas Jefferson Education rather than for a biography page on DeMille—with regards to subject matter jurisdiction and with regards to precedent (see formatting of :Category:FA-Class biography articles). —Eustress talk 01:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If its a principle source of additional information for him, it belongs here as well, probably. There is no reason why an EL can only be used in one article. and I doubt anyone will ever be able to  get this to FA  DGG (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Oliver DeMille's website

message: What is the significance of the multiple CVs in the reference table? They seem to be saying the same thing over and over, and don't really answer a question posed by the content of the article. Propose we find the most relevant one and remove the others.Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a month since I suggested we remove the redundant CV's. Does anyone have an objection to this?Ibinthinkin (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: CVs

message: I modified the language regarding the publication of the New World Order book to agree with the Brooks article, which is the source cited for this information. Please weigh in if you have concerns.  Ibinthinkin (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NWO:CvS

message: Returning to an issue I raised months ago for improving this article: I would like for interested editors to consider removing the reference to "Christ v. Satan" in the History section. It was a self-published book from when DeMille was like 21 years old, it has nothing to do with anything for which he is notable, is nowhere available for an interested researcher to follow up on, and does not reflect his current views. I think it's only mentioned because it's sexy--sort of controversial--and as a BLP, that's a really dumb reason to include something. We need to have laser focus to provide relevant, sourceable facts, and not be so moved by the sensational. 
If we are to agree to include details of that level of citability and notability, this article will be much, much longer, and far less readable, relevant or encyclopedic. Comments? Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability 

message: The sourced blog article by DeMille has disappeared from TJEdOnline.com. I contacted the owner and they indicated that their site had been hacked in early December, and as it was a custom-built site and the functionality that delivered Oliver's blog was compromised, they were in the process of moving that content to their other sites. I'll try to stay on top of it and link to that content once it becomes available. Ibinthinkin (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I sourced to the new location of the content. Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeMille's account 

message: Noticed multiple problems with this BLP. Reads very promotional in nature, includes some rather sloppy and inadequate sourcing, too many self-published sources, and misrepresents the subject's involvement with Wythe, an institution which was rather critical of De Mille and yet this criticism is not addressed in the BLP. I've trimmed and tagged much of the problematic material but this still needs a lot of work. I'm on the fence as to whether the subject is even notable enough for a BLP. The only notable publication by this author was Leadership, and I don;t see any major write-ups on the book; not sure whether a mere entry on a list qualifies as notable. Are there not any reliable independent third party reviews?  Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Red, I wouldn't argue the case for deletion, but I would say that the previous iteration of this article seemed to me to be a little off-kilter. Most people don't know DeMille for his involvement with GW - nor less, what GW is. I don't think that's the headline, but rather TJEd, the educational model of which DeMille is the principal proponent and architect over the past 15 years, and which is noted on homeschool sites and blogs all over the net as a significant "type" of homeschooling. I also question the emphasis on his association with Meadeau View Institute (notable?) over twenty years ago. Nobody's ever heard of it. It was described as a sort of a summer job in college. Not sure why it needs to be addressed here. Another concern is that the article previously proposed to take on the he-said she-said dispute between Wythe and DeMille that is, by any objective measure, rife with emotionally charged allegations and innuendo, bland denials and rebuttals, and is nowhere else noted for independent commentary on the subject.  While this topic is interesting and even salacious, it has not reported on by objective and credible sources, and as a BLP it is improper of WP to take on an OR treatment of the contentious topic that is clearly still unfolding. I'll undertake to comment on it sourcing both sides without editorializing on the subject. Interested parties can do their own original research. Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Issue (POV, promo, neutrality, etc.) and Problems With Respect to Wythe 

message: With the removal of all the links to DeMille's articles on CSL blog and other changes, I don't think it reads like an advert anymore. And there are multiple outside sources now referenced. Removed tags. Let me know if I missed a beat and we'll revisit this. Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: Previous editor pared the list of published works quite significantly. With these books still in print and distribution, I'm not sure that's the best way to go, but in deference to simplicity and brevity (which I think we all appreciate) I linked instead (in the External Links section) to the author's page on amazon, which has a list of his works. Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Works

message: I removed the lofty editor's language about searching for "rigor" or whatever in his education, and just stuck to the facts of his educational history. Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History