Talk:Andre Vltchek

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Andre Vltchek. 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/20160413193445/http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/09/357836/west-propaganda-machine-targets-russia/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/09/357836/west-propaganda-machine-targets-russia/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714155114/http://www.tehrantimes.com/world/101265-freedom-of-speech-has-become-a-propaganda-slogan-andre-vltchek to http://www.tehrantimes.com/world/101265-freedom-of-speech-has-become-a-propaganda-slogan-andre-vltchek

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

all of the continents of the world
What about Antarctida?Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, most of the content on his expertise, etc., is taken from a 'bio' on Amazon. These bios are written by the author, not by a third party. This makes it WP:ABOUTSELF rather than descriptions by WP:RS. What secondary sources there are on Vltcheck have merely replicated his own blurb about himself. In essence, his notability is more WP:PEACOCK self-promotion than based on secondary sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think this article is overdue for a major cleanup, and paring back to reliable sources. MatthewTStone (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian name?
What is his original Russian name? Андре Влчек in Soviet Union? Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Issues with the article
First up, its shameful how western editors make this author look as bad as possible by adding false "issues" on the header of the article, and by deleting notable events in this person's life. I have deleted every single false "issue" notice and have restored content with inline citations from newspapers and magazines around the world. If you white apologists have any issues with this, please voice your claims over here instead of simply adding tags to the article to make the author look bad.


 * Issue 1 - BLP - "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification"
 * Every statement has an inline citation, many have multiple. Delete any statement that does not. Go read the refs instead of simply adding false tags.


 * Issue 2 - Notability - "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies"
 * Author of 10+ books, film maker, director, appeared in various TV shows and newspapers around the world, and is still "non-notable"? Please specify your issue with notability here.


 * Issue 3 - Peacock - "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information"
 * Seriously, guys? Without imparting real information? I could have included hundreds of statements that are published in newspapers that the author has spoken about. I have instead omitted all of that "anti-West" material and only focussed on the facts. Author has travelled to XYZ, and has written XYZ, appeared on XYZ. You have an issue with that as well? I challenge you to find a single "peacock term" in the article. Delete it if you do. Good luck.


 * Issue 4 - Primary sources - "This article relies too much on references to primary sources"
 * Too much on primary sources? How come every single citation is a newspaper or publication that is NOT published by the author? No blog links. No personal website links. Which "primary sources" are you editors going on about?

So please specify your "issues" with the article here, instead of simply reverting my edits and starting an edit war. I appreciate your understanding of WP:OWN.

Regards. Wonderfl (reply) 18:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious edits on this article
User: Wonderfl, the article is now a lot better than it was. However, looking through the article history, it's evident that 'someone', possibly the subject of the article, has been creating sock puppets to disguise his involvement. I would refer you to the following users, who have only ever edited this article, and on at least one occasion have been blocked for edit warring: User:Yayoisv; User:Rindira; User:Bcleary2909; User:YagoEd and User:Goncre. The last one created the article in the first place. If these users are the subject himself, then it's a conflict of interest, and something to watch for in future. MatthewTStone (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Matthew, I tried to go over the sources (newspaper articles) and bring statements from those into the article. I tried to remove any un-cited statements as well. Wonderfl (reply) 06:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm having serious problems with content not based on WP:RS. Anything that looks half-way respectable in terms of interviews is written by authors who are incredibly famous according to their own PR. Wikipedia is not a platform from which to announce how world famous and respected someone is unless there is compelling evidence that it isn't a bit of back scratching: something that the internet is now famous for., if you have WP:COI regarding the subject of this article, I'd suggest that you make it known ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy, you seem to have a strong WP:COI regarding the subject of this article. I have made 10+ constructive edits which you reverted without any reasonable explanation. I have therefore reverted your revert. Don't you dare accuse me of COI. In your edit comment you mentioned "Rv Do not edit war, particularly using dubious sources. Discussion is on the talk page.". Firstly, Edit war? I did not "edit war", I simply made improvements to the article. Secondly, "dubious sources"? Do you consider any non-american newspapers dubious sources? If not, then please specify which of the sources I added are dubious. And Thirdly, please stop "edit warring" yourself. I have been as constructive as possible with this article displaying as little bias as possible towards the subject, and you have been repeatedly reverting edits with no explanation. Who is edit warring here?? Wonderfl (reply) 06:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyways I have gone over the article once more and deleted uncited statements. I have added citations where possible/available. Wonderfl (reply) 07:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you have been adding these "issue" tags since the beginning, I have therefore gone over all the issues once more. You can find my responses in the above issues section. However, notability for bios are not clearly defined so I re-added the tag. The other tags are totally non-applicable and so I couldn't bring myself to add them back in. Wonderfl (reply) 07:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * and, I would add that I find myself with agreeing with you both to a certain degree. The article definitely needs at least one tag, and WP:Notability is probably the one for the time being. However putting aside the merits, or otherwise, of the current version, for me there is a much bigger issue. I have now had a chance to go back in more forensic detail over the Page History, and it's clear that someone very close to the subject has been regularly editing the page. For example, this edit [], where sourced information about Vltchek's parents was removed by User:Goncre, with the Edit Summary: (Andre Vltchek does not wish to have his biography listed on the page.) My question is, who would be the person who 'knows' what Andre Vltchek wants – if not Andre Vltchek himself ? (Or his wife/girlfriend/boyfriend, etc.) This is dishonest behaviour on his part, and there is a consistent pattern with User:Goncre and (most of) the other above-mentioned (apparent) WP:Sock users, of adding spurious promotional links, while deleting negative information about Vltchek. I think this is very disrespectful to other WP:Good faith editors. This is not an issue I've ever encountered before, despite having been editing for a number of years. I'm not sure what the correct procedure is – but in future I would imagine the article should immediately be tagged with an appropriate WP:COI tag. Perhaps measures should be taken to apply for some kind of Page Protection also, if the behaviour persists. MatthewTStone (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I added the COI tag since it seems appropriate based on your research. Wonderfl (reply) 11:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the page history, I think also, as a matter of principle, any (sourced) information that has been removed by the apparent WP:Sock users should be reinstated. And for the sake of balance, at least some criticism / negative reviews of Vltchek's work, assuming these are available (to date I have not been able to find much, mostly he seems to get 'glowing' reviews from like-minded individuals). I will look into this. MatthewTStone (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The major problem with this BLP is that it lacks WP:RS. The example of sourced information being removed actually points to yet another WP:SELFPUBLISH being used as if it were an RS. WP:BLPs are not simply articles one can casually retain content on just because someone has found a source if the source is poor quality, biased, etc. Policy is very clear on the matter of WP:NOTRELIABLE. Reiterating (and re-winkilinking): please read the WP:BLP policy carefully. My removal of content from questionable sources is not a malevolent act on my behalf. It is not COI on my behalf (and please be wary of casting WP:Aspersions,, as you have been keenly reinstating WP:PEACOCK and poor quality sources, etc., my question to you as to COI was in good faith as opposed to the WP:BATTLEGROUND you've now turned it into). I have investigated the subject of the BLP carefully, and have been unable to find any compelling evidence for notability, and no respectable RS on the subject (the subject on himself is only reliable for his own opinions, and needs to be attributed WP:INTEXT - not simply inline - when it is obvious that it is his own bio on himself that is being repeated verbatim in the only sources examining his work).

If I have still not made myself sufficiently clear as to why content has been removed (and I'm not concerned with sock farms here, just the content on its own merit without any form of finger-pointing): "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

, I have already spent a copious amount of time on trying to find sources, but am unable to find anything I could even begin to describe as being reliable. Verifiable we have; reliable we do not. You're not going to find WP:BALANCE as to opinions on the subject or his works when he is not discussed in reliable sources, full stop. I suggest that I have been lazy and remiss in not putting together an AfD and nominating the article for deletion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems, in some cases at least, it's a kind of feedback loop, where Wikipedia is using sources that are in turn relying on Wikipedia as a source. As below, has pointed out, the subject seems to have set up his own publishing company, enabling him to churn out his publications ad-infinitum. These self-published books are featured heavily in the article, and it almost looks like an advertisement with its current structure. What about the 'film maker' and 'investigative journalist' aspects? He has posted a stream of videos on Youtube, but I don't think that makes someone a 'film maker' – at least not a notable one. There was one supposedly made for UNESCO. However, upon closer inspection it was merely made for a regional office and did not appear to have wide distribution. I would also have expected a career documentary maker to have work at least reviewed by mainstream publications, but this doesn't seem to have been the case. His activities as an 'investigative journalist' are again, highly questionable. Overall, Vltchek seems borderline non-notable and possibly an WP:AfD is the way forward. Although playing devil's advocate, he has published a book with Chomsky as co-author (it was not self-published, as far as I can tell). Perhaps this alone might make Vltchek notable enough for an article in Wikipedia, even though his other efforts don't make the grade? MatthewTStone (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Self-Publishing and Notability
Should it not be mentioned that Vltchek is largely self-published? His only notability of any significance appears to be a fleeting association with Chomsky. The majority of his books are published by "Badak Merah"(1), which claims to be based in Indonesia(2) but does not appear in the central registry of business entities(3), whose website uses the same host as Vltchek's(4), whose Twitter feed consists almost exclusively of retweets of Vltcheck's(5), and which was set up, if that can be said of an unregistered entity, by Vltchek and his friends Rossie Indira and Susy Aisyah Nataliwati(6).

Sources:

(1) http://andrevltchek.weebly.com/books.html

(2) http://badak-merah.weebly.com/about-us.html

(3) http://www.beritanegara.co.id/frontend/web/index.php?TblBnriSearch%5Bno_bn%5D=&TblBnriSearch%5Bno_tbn%5D=&TblBnriSearch%5Btahun_terbit%5D=&TblBnriSearch%5Bbadan_hukum%5D=Badak+Merah&TblBnriSearch%5Bnotaris%5D=&r=tbl-bnri%2Findex

(4) http://badak-merah.weebly.com/

(5) https://twitter.com/badakmerahpress?lang=en

(6) http://rossie-indira.weebly.com/ - fifth paragraph, or find in page "Andre".

BightScrew (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability
According to the opening paragraph, Mr. Vltchek was born in both the Czech Republic and in St. Petersburg, which are nowhere near each other. That sounds especially notable by itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.204.218 (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And don't forget Leningrad, in the subject photo subscript. Remarkable.  Rags (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Vltchek.jpg