Talk:Oliver DeMille

Original Research tag
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)
 * I agree that it is tedious, but it is not original research. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR Considering that this is a WP:BLP care should be exercised. 2ewrap (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the chart of DeMille's "degrees". First of all, it's not very subtle in its POV, and as a BLP that's problematic. Secondly, there are some slight exaggerations that serve to make the non-neutral point. For example, if you go to the source cited in reference #8, it is simply a list of degrees, not an chronological itemization. TrustTruth is going to a lot of trouble to establish a timeline with inconsistencies, and this raises concerns with OR, NPOV and BLP. Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

A chart documenting the rather long list of degrees DeMille has obtained is germane to the article and to the admitted criticism that DeMille sought out diplomas from questionable educational organizations. It is germane because DeMille has set himself up as an educator of a higher institution without the formal training necessary for all accredited institutions. I concur that no deductions should be made, but the graph is instructive to readers and demonstrates DeMille's efforts to gain degrees. Trust, I would bring the graphh back and make sure no deductions are made; however, it is appropriate to use reliable references to explain the instituions from which the degrees came. -- Storm  Rider  20:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
This is perilously near to an attack page. See my comments at the AfD. I have made a partial edit. A neutral description of the education is still needed. (agreed, some earlier version were equally biased n an opposite direction).




 * ALMA MATER:
 * The summary box lists a couple of "schools" as alma maters and then the article goes on to comment that these were not actually schools. It seems that either one element or the other ought to be amended so that there is internal consistency. The way it is makes it seem like the alma maters listed, CRBU, LaSalle and TIBS are listed in the summary box for the purpose of having an easy link to articles created by the editor of the text in order to unfavorably characterize the subject's educational history. Problematic for BLP, OR & NPOV.Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)




 * Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting we delete the sections on CRBU, LaSalle, and TIBS because they weren't really schools? Yes, I did contribute to those articles. You are welcome to as well. BLP, OR, and NPOV issues have been discussed and addressed at length at this article, so you are welcome to build on those discussions. --TrustTruth (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that based on the consensus that CRBU, TIBS and LaSalle were diploma mills and DeMille doesn't claim the degrees, it doesn't follow that the article should list those as "alma maters". BYU makes sense, though.  I'm ONLY referring to the alma mater listings here.  The discussion of his educational history I think is relevant.  Ibinthinkin (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay I see. Maybe it's best to drop any mention of an alma mater in the infobox altogether to avoid any confusion. That being said, when you claim degree (even from a diploma mill), don't you pick up the other end of the stick as well, and therefore have a (diploma mill) alma mater? Also, the asterisk in the infobox clarifies that he no longer lists those degrees. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. Dropping the references to alma maters. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * EDUCATION:
 * Quoting from the Education section of the article: "DeMille cites his education history as a model for TJEd adherents to follow."


 * This assertion has no source, and the tone feels sort of ironic. In the context of the article, I think the way the phrase in question is worded sort of colors the rest with a neg POV--like it's the thesis statement, and the discussion of his educational history is the "proof" of the irony of it.  Raises concerns for NPOV.


 * Can we tinker with this a little? I guess first we should find a citation to establish that the assertion stands as it is, then address the tone/word choice. Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, please tinker with it! --TrustTruth (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a citation. Ibinthinkin (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV again
It seems like the overall purpose TalkTruth's and TheRealGW's (see his blog [here]http://themakingofauniversity.blogspot.com/) edits of this article is to shed a negative light on Oliver DeMille's educational history between the years of 1991 and 1994, and DeMille's subsequent references to that history. There's an encyclopedically entoned agenda of directing every section back to a discussion of those three years, with extensive references and notes to hammer home the point again and again. There is absolutely a place in this forum for saying that a 22-year-old college student was too big for his britches, to note that he associated himself with spurious academic institutions as a young man, but to make the whole article about it really reflects poorly in terms of OR, POV and BLP.

The unreferenced assertion that DeMille cites his educational history as a model for adherents of TJEd to follow is the scaffold upon which the majority of the article is based. The cumulative impact of the article runs pretty close to the line (crossing it at times?) of an ad hominem attack. I propose that a major revision of the educational history that is more concise and and neutral be undertaken. I also propose that somebody (anybody?) undertake to develop the article on points of interest since 1994, including the reasons why DeMille is considered notable. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. The purpose of my edits is not to shed a negative light, it is to shed light period. We have had a constructive back-and-forth so far, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. As far as the phrase about his educational history being a model, I agreed with you, as documented above. I removed it myself before I saw your message here. Please, let's assume good faith and focus on the article, not on each other. --TrustTruth (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that we can come to a good solution. But let me be clear: the concern I have is not just with the comment about the educational history as a model. My problem is that the next 2000 words are a very polite diatribe, and the article frankly never manages to address the question of who is Oliver DeMille and why anyone cares.  I've been grappling with it on and off all evening, and I have to say it's a little overwhelming to consider how to revise it.  It's just SOOOO much stuff, and it's all problematic POV. It needs to be simplified, like maybe this (please don't just put this in, I'm not seriously proposing it--it's off the top of my head and needs work):


 * "There are various early accounts of DeMille's educational history; the most recent and consistently corroborated version states that he left BYU before completing his undergraduate degree to study under W. Cleon Skousen. He was subsequently awarded Bachelor, Masters and Doctoral degrees from Coral Ridge Baptist University.  CRBU was a degree-granting institution registered with the state of Florida with the provision that any degree awarded carry the "religious" designation.  CRBU was not regionally accredited, and ceased operations in ????.  DeMille subsequently completed his accredited Bachelor's degree with BYU.  DeMille recounts here [citation-do we have his word on this, or is Brooks the only source?] that he was unwittingly awarded "degrees" from two diploma mills, the credentials for which he represented in his CV and writings for a time, and later disavowed."


 * I don't know--seems like one or two paragraphs ought to get it done.


 * I further suggest that the following would be relevant to the article:


 * - a section describing the basic principles of Thomas Jefferson Education
 * - a section describing the gist of GWU
 * - a list of works that includes more of his recent stuff (most of the things listed are not available anywhere and speak to the depiction that he's a conservative wingnut, even though he has publicly acknowledged that his views as a young man were extreme and he no longer holds those views)


 * Although all of these elements are listed in the headings, the content is more along the lines of enumerating discrepancies and representing his early views than describing to an interested reader what they are about, and what the majority of people know him for and are interested in.


 * Maybe it feels too extreme to just redo everything, to take out all the "dirt". Perhaps a separate section entitled, "Controversy" could be created to air the issues that now take up the entire article.  Then they get to be represented, but have less chance of coming off with negPOV.  Still, with a BLP we have to be careful that it's really relevant and not just getting personal.


 * I think I'm going to take a stab at a wholly rewritten article to propose here. Not planning wholesale changes without discussion, rest assured.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A few points. First, there are already sections describing his involvment with TJEd and GWU, and these subjects have their own articles. Perhaps a "see also" at the beginning of each section is in order. Second, it's your opinion that his publications are extreme, but our opinions shouldn't matter in the construction of the article. We're aiming for a neutral point of view here. Whitewashing the list of his publications because you feel it makes him look like a "conservative wingnut" would certainly not be npov. The article already makes clear that he has disavowed these publications. Finally, the "Professional life" section explains who he is and why anyone would care. Perhaps this section should be moved ahead of the Education section to make that more clear. Like I suggested earlier, go back to the revisions from September 2008 and you can see how far the article has come. --TrustTruth (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added the "see also" templates to several sections. --TrustTruth (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that most of the article gives undue weight to where and when he received his degrees. It definitely should be shortened. As for adding new sections to this article, there is already one devoted to the book A Thomas Jefferson Education (although it may need a little work since I didn't really get much of a feel for the book from the two paragraphs) and there's already an existing WP article for it. If you create a section for GWU, it doesn't need to be very long since there's already a WP article on that as well.  If he has published other articles or books since A Thomas Jefferson Education, I think a section covering them would be appropriate here.  I would also be in favor of a Controversy section to ensure each side is presented while maintaining NPOV in the main article.--4by40 (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've just reviewed the rest of the discussion notes. It appears that it has been suggested on two other occasions that major revisions be undertaken so that the article is not an investigative piece on DeMille's CV. I'm late to the game, but apparently my conclusions are already corroborated, but nobody has yet taken the time to rewrite the article. Sigh. Fine. I'll try to get a suggested new version up for review before the end of the day, so if you want a voice in this, stay tuned. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, new to this. I guess I can't put up an unpublished version; we just have to rely on the revert/edit thing if you all have concerns with my changes. I welcome your input--not trying to hijack the article, just responding to the persistent comment that a major revision is owing here. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What two other occasions are you referring to? The discussion with 2ewrap and DGG already resulted in a major revision. What are you referring to, as you are the only one who has suggested a major revision since that time? --TrustTruth (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The comment has been made by three individuals besides myself (1. Hurmata: "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." 2. uncredited comment under NPOV "a neutral description of the education is still needed" and 3. "I agree that most of the article gives undue weight to where and when he received his degrees. It definitely should be shortened. As for adding new sections to this article, there is already one devoted to the book A Thomas Jefferson Education (although it may need a little work since I didn't really get much of a feel for the book from the two paragraphs) and there's already an existing WP article for it. If you create a section for GWU, it doesn't need to be very long since there's already a WP article on that as well. If he has published other articles or books since A Thomas Jefferson Education, I think a section covering them would be appropriate here. I would also be in favor of a Controversy section to ensure each side is presented while maintaining NPOV in the main article."--4by40) that the bulk of the article is a weighted discussion of the CV. I've made a suggestion of the type of change I think would be more appropriate.  Could you comment on that? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and those comments resulted in a major revision at the time. Look it up. --TrustTruth (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I seem to be back here again. The articles has some obvious problems still. The elaborate effort to prove that his degrees are not authentic is in my opinion a mistake, and, however the details are handled, is likely to violate WP:SYN--it amounts to original journalism. If anyone ever publishes a secondary articles in a truly RS like the CHE, it can be quoted to this effect. Some of the material is very peripheral. He's an educator, and his views on gardening aren't relevant & have been removed.  The listing of his original pamphlets would be clarified by giving exact bibliographic information, including the date. If they are in WorldCat, there will be some sort of identifying number as well. The statement--"he continued after 1992" seems gratuitous. Just put in the dates.  DGG (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

New Education section
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)

Okay, I finished the revision and put in the references. I would appreciate some reviews--TrustTruth has indicated that he was concerned I might be overly "favorable" in my edits. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Copyedit
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I added the bibliographic info and removed the link to the blog. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
''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)

Professional Life
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)

Notability and article merger
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Many of his publications do not seem notable and should not be listed—especially those published by a school he co-founded! —Eustress talk 17:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of cited sources
This version from 4/1/09 juxtaposed with the current version  demonstrates how dramatically the article has changed since Ibinthinkin began his edits. Although it wouldn't necessarily prevent him from legitimately editing the article, this editor may have a conflict of interest and therefore his edits may need to come under scrutiny. Some quick notes on the article changes between the previous and current versions: Total references, 20 vs 5; total footnotes, 60 vs 15; article size, 38kb vs 12kb. Surely the 4/1/09 version was not perfect and needed revision, by the way. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If this editor has a potential conflict of interest, the editor is strongly encouraged to admit that interest on their talk own page as well as this article. To quote the policy:
 * "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia."
 * The allegation has been raised and should be left alone. Personal privacy takes precedence over COI policy; please be careful about any further allegations. Assume good faith and expect that personal integrity is maintained. This article is about a topic for which I have little expertise, but in my review I see whitewashing going on. Founding a university of higher learning, teaching at this same unaccredited institution all while not have a "real" degree and acquiring phony degrees is charlatanic. This has all been expunged from the article and is not acceptable. Presently, the article is a puff piece and highly POV.-- Storm  Rider  15:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Admitted Credential Fabrication
This is pretty strong language for a BLP, considering there is no citation regarding where DeMille states that he fabricated his degrees.

It is arguable that he is "known" for degree fabrication, when the principal source of this concept is the past version of this very WP article. Recommend review of this language, and revision of lead. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Making such a strong statement without a reference is not acceptable; however, it would appear that the allegation is a proper deduction given the type of degrees acquired and the institutions from which they were attained. But that is not a deduction for Wikipedia to make. It is better to demonstrate that the number of degrees acquired and the type of programs from which they came and allow readers to make their own deductions. This is the difficulty of writing an article on a living person; it becomes even more difficult when an individual has such an unsavory pursuit of academic degrees. -- Storm  Rider  15:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the fabrication is both documented outside of the WP article (see footnote 12) and admitted to by DeMille himself in the cited reference. Unfortunately, as an educator, fabricating credentials is especially taboo. One could argue that it is a fact that is not worthy to appear in the lead but, once again, since he is an educator who founded a college/university that has awarded some controversial degrees I think it is a fact that should be included in the lead. --Drbhh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC).


 * I've just reviewed the document you refer to as the citation, and can't find anywhere that DeMille states that he fabricated his degrees. What p. 9 of the cited document does say is that as DeMille sought alternative means of expanding his educational experience, he was embarrassed to have been the victim of a diploma mill scam. I agree that there is an issue of controversy here that is appropriately reflected in the article, but the language in the lead does not agree with the supposed supporting documentation.  Is there some other source that could be cited to back it up?


 * However the article refers to the subject ought to be considered carefully in light of BLP. In my mind it is clear that the current version is not neutral, and could be a BLP violation. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so; it is admission by the individual and therefore fair game. His role in education makes this bit of history more than pertinent. I reworded the intro to more clearly separate his accomplishments from his less than stellar academic career accomplishments. I also re-added a section that demonstrates his searching for degrees without having achieved them from accredited institutions. Given that the article so clearly rings the bell that he is a president and trustee of a college, the article needs to balance that by clearly identifying how he achieved such a position at such a young age. -- Storm  Rider  17:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like we were posting at the same time. I think that to state that his only accredited degree is from BYU is absolutely appropriate.  Refer to my comment above regarding concerns over the comment on fabricating degrees. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Fabrication is different from obtaining degrees from diploma mills. I have changed to intro to reflect that point.-- Storm  Rider  18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can anyone help me find the source documentation on citations #13, 14 & 15? They need titles, and/or page numbers so the reader can do his own checking of the source.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Try going back to the 4-1-09 version, before 15 of the 20 references were deleted. Here's a link: --TrustTruth (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the change is an improvement, but the language is still leading. This point of view is not generally accepted, and I believe it seems to be leading the reader to a non-neutral conclusion.  This controversial factoid should be reflected as a controversy, not as the lead. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * BLP alert on citations 17 and 20. Presumably the reason to release a new edition of a book is to improve on the previous version, and the later editions vary from the first.  These citations appear to have as their purpose to embarrass and confront the subject of the article with discrepancies in his history, which practice is expressly a violation of BLP.  The article already makes reference to earlier discrepancies, and the article in its current version appears to be making the statement that the variations were an intentional deception, and that is WP's civic duty to warn the public about the dubious character of the subject of the article. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the emphasis in the references is not appropriate and should be removed. As for the lead, I think it could justifiably be even more negative, but is seems about right the way it is.


 * I have to comment that when you get a degree from a "diploma mill" you are never a "victim" and you didn't get the degree "unwittingly". Any person (much less a person like DeMille who is seemingly so motivated by strong educational experiences) knows that when you get a degree, especially a J.D., without doing any work then something is amiss. In fact, I think the word "unwittingly" needs to be removed from the middle of the article.


 * Having said all this, I think it is about time to move on and look at some of the positive professional work that he is doing currently. There is bound to be lots of stuff out there that can be included in the Professional section. --Drbhh (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the "unwittingly" to obtained; I agree with you that it is impossible to be a victim when seeking degrees from diploma mills. What surprises me is that anyone would refer to him as Dr. DeMille knowing that it is not merited; he has a doctorate of nothing, and only has a BA. Let's be careful about how he is referred to in the article.
 * Ibin, if you are saying that the emphasis in 17 and 20 are wrong; I agree with you. Are you saying something else? What is important about these statements is that DeMille was discussing his pursuit of degrees and how he thought about them. Between claiming you are embarrassed for having sought out the degrees today, but classifying them as prestigious in the past is found an immense gulf. Essentially, DeMille sought degrees for self-aggrandizement, but then later realized that those degrees are anything but advantageous. It appears even worse because he is involved in education. -- Storm  Rider  19:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * SR, I think you misread the reference. It refers to a respected private university.  I presumed him to be referring to BYU, which I think fits that description.  I think the emphasis intended by the editor who placed the citations was that in the original he stated that he had graduated, and in the revised edition he states that he had studied.  Brooks' history states that he had not graduated yet, and the 2006 edition agrees with that account. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two distinct issues at play here. First, whether DeMille purchased degrees from a diploma mill. Second, whether DeMille fabricated one or more other degrees. (Accreditation is a red herring and has nothing to do with either issue.)

DeMille admits to the first allegation. He has said nothing (that I can find documented) about the second -- about fabricating degrees. At a minimum, there is strong evidence that the B.A. from GWC and the B.A. from Coral Ridge are fabricated. He doesn't even claim the GWC one anymore, and the Coral Ridge one didn't appear on any CV until 2005 -- the same time he stopped saying he got the BYU degree first. --TrustTruth (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the table should be removed and replaced with a short paragraph similar to what you just wrote TT. My issues with the table are: 1) it takes a while to decipher it and decode it's meaning and relavance to the article; 2) it takes up so much space that the reader will naturally be drawn to it and give it attention disproportional to its value to understanding DeMille; and 3) I actually think it distracts the reader from the real issues relating to DeMille's academic credentials - what I mean by this is that the timeline discrepancies are not what are most troubling here (although they are interesting), but what is troubling is that DeMille claimed and then stopped claiming various degrees AND that he did purchase at least one (or was it two) degrees from a "diploma mill" AND that even his current degrees which he does claim (minus the BYU BA) are from a now defunct, unaccredited, correspondence university and are not verifiable by any means. Add to this the fact that he founded a university 2 years prior to finishing his "Ph.D" and several (?) years prior to finishing his BYU BA and you have an interesting situation. All of this can be expressed in prose much more easily than using a table. Thoughts?


 * And, once again, I reiterate my call for someone (Ibin?) to add to the professional sections so that the article reflects the good that is being done and doesn't focus only on the bad. --Drbhh (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we're getting closer to a good form. IMHO, DRbhh's proposal is a step in the right direction. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly have no problem seeing a narrative form rather than a chart to demonstrate some of the early educational choices made my Mr. DeMille. -- Storm  Rider  23:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I originally made the table because explaining it in paragraph form was getting so clumsy. However, I'm not the best writer out there, and if we can find a way to express it smoothly, I'm definitely not opposed to changing it. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a shot at writing something up since I brought it up. Look for a post here in the next day or so and please add your comments to it. BTW, I've written a similar summary of the current controversies related to GWU doctoral degrees over in the talk section (under the Diploma Mill Allegations subsection) of the GWU article and would welcome input on it before posting to the main article. So far only TT has weighed in. --Drbhh (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Input needed on this possible writeup

I wrote something up based on the talk and the info already available and hope that all of the participating editors will still be interested in considering it and editing it as needed. I propose two things (1) eliminate the table and place my writeup (or something derived from it) in a Controversies subsection of the Early Life and Education section and (2) remove the reference to "diploma mills" and his BYU degree from the header. I think this entry is sufficient for the interested reader. Anyway, let me know what you think:

DeMille’s education and academic credentials have been the source of some controversy. He holds one verifiable degree, a B.A. in International Relations (1994) from Brigham Young University. He also claims three degrees from Coral Ridge Baptist University (CRBU), 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.

The controversy exists because (1) it is difficult to verify three of his degrees earned from the now-defunct CRBU (via transcripts, a thesis, or a dissertation); (2) several written accounts exist which claim that his degrees were awarded in various and contradictory orderings; (3) in the past he has claimed one degree which he no longer claims, a B.A. from George Wythe College, the institution which he founded; (4) a separate degree, the B.A. from CRBU earned in 1992, was included in a 2006 curriculum vitae but inexplicably omitted from curriculum vitas written in 1999 and 2001; and (5) he has admitted to, and expressed humiliation and regret for, obtaining “degrees” from two diploma mills, including a Juris Doctorate degree from LaSalle University, which was based in Louisiana and was confirmed to be a diploma mill. --Drbhh (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

POV tag
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. -- Storm  Rider  16:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was given an edit conflict message as I was posting the NPOV section; see below. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
Stating that DeMille admitted to receiving degrees from diploma mills in the lead puts undue weight on controversy that is notable primarily due to attention given to it here in the WP article.

References to controversy regarding DeMille's education should be noted in a separate controversy section, and not under education.

The return of "the box" is problematic, as on the talk page it previously was noted to give undue weight to the point of controversy. The box itself is problematic because alleged discrepancies in the CV are sourced to citations that do not support the content--extrapolation is required to arrive at the conclusion so tidily provided for the casual reader. Neither ref 14 nor 15 have chronological data, and citations 16 and 17 simply agree with one another. This citational insufficiency was pointed out before the box was previously removed. The article fails to demonstrate the significance of the early discrepancies, or that DeMille is notable for this feature of his life. To do so would require either leaps and deductions, or editorializing, neither of which is a function of this forum.

References 17 and 20 serve only to indicate that an editing change was made in a second edition to a book published by the author. Significance of this factoid is not established, and again appears to serve the interests of the editor(s) in assisting the reader to arrive at a particular conclusion about the subject's character and/or intent.

Taken in and of themselves, these are edits that are particularly worrisome in a BLP. When evaluated in the context of the dialog on this talk page ("Many of his publications do not seem notable and should not be listed—especially those published by a school he co-founded!", "This is the difficulty of writing an article on a living person; it becomes even more difficult when an individual has such an unsavory pursuit of academic degrees.", "Actually, the fabrication is both documented outside of the WP article (see footnote 12) and admitted to by DeMille himself in the cited reference." [I note here that the cited reference does not contain an admission of fabricated degrees.], "Any person (much less a person like DeMille who is seemingly so motivated by strong educational experiences) knows that when you get a degree, especially a J.D., without doing any work then something is amiss." [I note that DeMille explicitly states that the J.D. did require work.], "Essentially, DeMille sought degrees for self-aggrandizement, but then later realized that those degrees are anything but advantageous.", "As for the lead, I think it could justifiably be even more negative".), and given the fact that this article is a BLP, and given that it has historically been noted as, "dangerously close to an attack piece," and that the editor that crafted that version is campaigning, with collaboration from other editors with demonstrable bias, to have the primary features of that previous version reinstated, I have grave concerns over whether WP should block the view of this article until a determination of neutrality can be reached.

The editors of this or any other article are entitled to be ignorant. But to assume the rhetoric of a neutral editor, even as they recur so prodigiously to references that purportedly establish their point of view without actually knowing what those citations say, speaks to my assertion that they are not trying to arrive at a verifiably neutral encyclopedia article, but rather they are parroting a biased editor's previous prejudiced original research to disrupt Wikipedia and promote their point of view.

Please, don't tell me I'm not assuming good faith. I cite these editors' bias in their very own words.

--Ibinthinkin (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that mentioning his degree issues puts undue weight -- this issue is one of the reasons he's actually notable, i.e. he is a source of controversy.


 * The chronology in refs 14 and 15 is implied. The first edition of TJED (ref 17) backs this up. I'm not seeing where refs 16 and 17 agree with each other -- did you mean 16 and 20?


 * The significance of refs 17 and 20 is obvious, and it mirrors the changes to the CV evident in the table (which we agreed could look better in paragraph form -- you said "IMHO, DRbhh's proposal is a step in the right direction"). --TrustTruth (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We must have been looking at different versions; I had a second window with the article open for reference as I noted my concerns, and it would appear it needed to be refreshed.


 * I don't challenge the worthiness of putting the degree issue in the article. I ask you to support your thesis that he is notable for it. It has been your tireless research and your linking of obscure sources to the wikipedia article that is the historical and susbstantive "notability" on this issue. It's a little bit like writing an article on Nixon's three-legged dog whom hardly anybody ever heard of, and then claiming the dog's notable because he has a wiki article about him.  Maybe he should appear on Nixon's page, but the notability was established by the wiki itself.  Okay, that was a really awkward example, and I hope in the name of intellectual honesty you will try to see past my metaphorical deficiencies.  My point is: 1. DeMille has a controversial issue that I agree has a place in his article. 2. The article over the past year or so has highlighted the controversy as pretty much the whole story, bringing its links to obscure documents up in rankings all the while (the substance of which sources is really not consistent--some support the thesis of controversy, some are seriously just filler). 3. we are now using the fact of the controversy this little junta focuses on as evidence that this is the defining issue of DeMille's notability.  It's a circular argument.


 * This is the crux of the NPOV issue here: we cannot arrive at a consensus regarding what constitutes undue weight unless we can determine if this information is best communicated in a section regarding controversy about the subject or if it should color the whole article, because "that's why he's notable". I understand that in TrustTruth's assessment this is so.  I do not think this is the case generally, and the notoriety of such sources that do highlight the controversy are almost without exception tracing their notability to the fact that TT has searched them out and elevated their browser placement through linking here.  This is a complex argument, and I urge editors to engage it philosophically and technically to see if there is any merit in it.


 * I disagree that chronology in 14 and 15 is "implied". It is common practice to list degrees in a hierarchal order, and no assumption of chronology is necessarily implied.  In either case, to use the "assumption" that it refers to a chronology as evidence that the subject intentionally communicated a chronology incorrectly is a logical leap that we are not empowered to take as WP editors on behalf of our readers.


 * Regarding the step in the right direction, I wonder how long the public should wait for us to talk this over with serious disagreement on what constitutes a NPOV without being made aware that the current emphasis and tone does not reflect a consensus, that the controversial content reflected has technically inaccuracies that negate the conclusions we are told to make by virtue of them, and the approach to the article is edging daily back to the undue weight that was a previous problem? I felt it necessary to tag the article to counter the careless editing (no assumption of bad faith here; I'm referring specifically to errors made by editors that reflected poorly on the subject, such as the assertion in the lead that DeMille had admitted to fabricating degrees, among others) that has been taking place. As a BLP, this article is subject to the highest standards of ethical treatment of the subject, and I wonder if I will see anyone here err on the side of caution? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ibinthinkin, your posting today at the BLP noticeboard, combined with the clear fact that you at the very least know DeMille's mother is troubling. You have again accused several editors here of being unable to edit from a NPOV by calling them biased. Please, let's assume good faith here and work together to make the article neutral, before we go out and make sweeping accusations against one another. DeMille is notable BECAUSE of these controversies, but there is no reason that the article can't portray a neutral point of view and fit into BLP standards. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are suggesting I have an undisclosed bias, I must say that I have disclosed clearly that I have had occasion to form a personal opinion of the accused and believe him to be frighteningly well-read, and a good person. There.  That's my bias.  Feel free to edit me as closely as you want.  Take out my OR, my POV.  I'm not worried about that.  And I have never suggested we obscure facts regarding DeMille's history.  I have said that to say them this way, and then say them again that way, and then with a pseudo-sourced graphic, and then, lest we forget, quote this and that to bring it home, when DeMille himself has come clean on all this YEARS ago, is not good editing.


 * And I return to the issue I raise that your concept of his notoriety reflects a strong bias. Clearly, it's all YOU know him for.  When you were the primary editor of this article you did not make a single mention of his current and highly popular works.  You found an obscure list of supposed recordings he had made in the early nineties and made that the list of his works. Your edits reflected detailed research into a past no one had ever heard of, and made virtually no reference to anything of actual merit or notoriety. When those were removed and his current works were added in, you suggested that maybe he wasn't notable at all, and should be listed under his book.   Please: you will find my bias in the talk pages, not in my edits.  I will allow that if there is an honest difference of opinion as to whether his controversy should define him, then good faith should require that I be more respectful than I have been.  Let me apologize.  But back to the substance of the issue, and hopefully with more respect and assumption of good faith than I have previously shown, let me again note that treatment of a BLP demands that we be conservative and show restraint when dealing with subjects that reflect negatively on the subject.  AGAIN: I am not saying that there should be not mention of the controversy.  I think the issue of controversy should be clearly and concisely enumerated in a controversy section.  But to make that the tone and substance of the whole article is not appropriate treatment of a BLP. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought you said we were heading in the right direction. IMO, you should have waited to see what the discussed edits looked like before you got too excited. --Drbhh (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the edits have anything to do with remedying the issues I have raised, I am still hopeful. However, the trend at this point is to revert the article to its previous form, my issues with which I have addressed.  And as for you posture of eventualism, I think it's a lovely guiding philosophy for WP in general, and WP policy asserts that it is bad form for BLP. We are not talking about saltines here.  This is a living person whose family and livelihood are impacted by affronts to his reputation.  I'm not sure why I'm the only one sounding that alarm here. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already stated I am not sure I would have started this article because I question notability of the individual. For the life of me, I think it is not appropriate to cover them unless they truly have national and world renown; if not they should be ignored because they are not notable enough. However, in that there is an article it is not acceptable to whitewash that history. He is active in education and helped start an institution of higher learning. IMHO, the problem is that he also sought out diplomas from institutions that hand them out for the asking. I find that deceitful when you are in education. What you have tried to enroll others is that DeMille's process of education is outside the norm. I agree, but he used the norm, academic degrees, to gain academic acknowledgment within the academic community. Your position would have more strength if DeMille had never pursued these types of degrees because he believed in a different way of education. Was it something he regrets? Undoubtedly, but that does not mean it should be excised from his history. The mere fact that his notability is derived from his activity in education makes the issue of these degrees so important.
 * BLP does not require that we whitewash history; we identify notability and provide relevant facts from reputable references. Special attention should be used when identifying reliable references. -- Storm  Rider  22:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with much of what you say, Ibin. Specifically that the article shouldn't go back to the way it was and that the negative should be included in proper proportion. I have worked to do this. I have been no more "eventual" about this process than you or anyone. And, I try to keep my bias in the talk section. I have proposed a possible way to write up all of this in the above section where we were working on it. Could you please take a look and offer your thoughts. Let's get this "ugly wart" out of the way so that we can move on to documenting some of the good things DeMille is doing now. --Drbhh (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm relieved to hear you say that. I've been feeling a little bit like a head on a spit.  I mentioned to DGG privately a couple of days ago, and I will say here, that I have communicated to a representative of DeMille's family a request that he respond to the concerns raised by the article.  I hope he will do so, as I think the problem of bias here is a direct result of his inattention to the allegations raised against him.  Based on the sources supplied, it is easy to deduce that he tried to do an end-run around doing the work to get an education, and then wanted to be respected for having done the work to get an education.  My personal opinion is that is a very narrow view (to not say "inaccurate") of what took place, and I have personal knowledge that contradicts many of the assumptions posited by TrustTruth; but I have no 3rd party citations to support my understanding of the facts in an editorial way, so I'm sort of in a bind when trying to plead the case for a different treatment here.  Hopefully they'll take seriously the need to go on record.  --Ibinthinkin (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * DGG, I think it appropriate to clarify my position. I am not attempting to misstate wikipedia policy, but rather provide my personal opinion about bios on living persons. DeMille meets the requirements of having an article, but I don't view that as an enviable position. I personally think it is better to raise the bar for living persons because of some the downsides of having an article about one's life. As soon as an individual has an article unsavory, personal history may be allowed in the article. Successful business men that have achieved great fame may feel uncomfortable about having their past bankruptcies revealed or past legal cases brought up on unfair business practices if they exist. In this case, DeMille being a founder and past president of a university while only having a doctorate from a cracker jack box is a contradiction. For educators of higher learning it is laughable. On the other hand, there is something admirable about an individual who fights for something he believes in. If his notability is as a past president of a university then to be balanced his educational background is also just as notable. I think it is error to highlight his accomplishment as a past president in the intro and then obscure the controversy of his educational background for later in the article. It is like looking at a nice chocolate sundae only to realize later that it is made out of reconstituted tofu with carob sauce.
 * When I review DeMille's background and how he presents himself I am confronted with two things: 1) he has accomplished a great deal and he has contributed to home schooling and he is obviously a bright fellow, and 2) he uses his doctorate degree as a mark of accomplishment and of learning. A doctorate from an accredited institution has nothing in common with a doctorate from one that is unaccredited. Certainly more can be said about his philosophy and work product, but not at the expense of burying this significant flaw. -- Storm  Rider  17:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't get the link to ZoomInfo. What were you trying to say with that? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

the actual principles here
The standard for notability for a Wikipedia article is much less that "national and world renown". It is notability, defined in general for people by WP:BIO and for academics by WP:PROF. The standard for content in bio articles is set by WP:BLP. Though we include relevant sourced information, we do not highlight it when it is not the main reason for notability.

As an for this article, I consider the present article to show an appropriate NPOV. What are the objections, specifically? DGG (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Stating that DeMille admitted to receiving degrees from diploma mills in the lead puts undue weight on controversy that is notable primarily due to attention given to it here in the WP article. May I propose that there is a difference between "significant" and "notable"?  It may be that investigative journalism should take an interest in the "significant" detail of DeMille's history. It may be that bloggers and authors could take up a hobby of sharing their view that DeMille is a creep and a liar.  The editors here seem to be of the opinion that it is their job with this article to ensure that DeMille cannot pass himself off as this or that, rather than to provide an encyclopedic accounting of what is.  If there is a public record of criminal action that speaks to the notability of the subject, it should be appropriately cited here.  This campaign to protect the reader from not reading in to the facts an appropriate level of skepticism regarding DeMille's character is evangelistic, in my opinion.


 * The return of "the box" is problematic, as on the talk page it previously was noted to give undue weight to the point of controversy. The box itself is problematic because alleged discrepancies in the CV are sourced to citations that do not support the content--extrapolation is required to arrive at the conclusion so tidily provided for the casual reader. Neither ref 12 nor 13 have chronological data, and the supposition that the subject of the article had intent to deceive people regarding the chronology of his educational history based on these documents is a leap of libelous proportions.  The citation 14 is merely a reflection of the "accepted" version that has appeared consistently for several years. This citational insufficiency was pointed out before the box was previously removed.  The article fails to demonstrate the significance of the early discrepancies, or that DeMille is notable for this feature of his life.  To do so would require either leaps and deductions, or editorializing, neither of which is a function of this forum.


 * References 17 and 20 could possibly be significant if the content of the box were relevant, but it is not; there appears to be an argumentation for a point of view here based on a preponderance of evidence, and yet the evidence does not establish the point. In light of this, 17 and 20 serve only to indicate that an editing change was made in a second edition to a book published by the author.  Absent the supporting evidence of the box's contents, significance of this factoid is not established, appears to speak to the point supposedly made (but not made) by the box, and again appears to serve the interests of the editor(s) in assisting the reader to arrive at a particular conclusion about the subject's character and/or intent.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No further issues on my part
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)
 * 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)

One itty-bitty issue
The CV posted on the CRBU cite can not accurately be said to have been a claim made by DeMille. There is no evidence that he posted or endorsed the CV, or that he maintained the site. The language might more accurately be something like: "On an archived version of the CRBU website.... --Ibinthinkin (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Go ahead and add that into the article. --Drbhh (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree here, as you could make the same argument about the GWC website -- who knows if the webmaster there just posted his own version of DeMille's CV without his permission? Is the difference that he basically controlled GWC, and by extension the website, but was just an adjunct at CRBU? --TrustTruth (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do think the language should be changed re: the BA from GWC to make it clear that DeMille didn't personally make this claim but the information still exists.


 * And while you're reading this I have to ask, why is it that Brooks claims to have an Ed.D. in one of the 1999 CVs listed here but now claims to have a Ph.D. on the current GWU website. It sure seems like these guys really play it lose when it comes to credentials. --Drbhh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Not sure about Brooks. I'm not surprised by the discrepancy. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I only bring it up because claiming you hold one degree while you actually hold another is pretty serious in the academic world. In fact, a faculty member from my alma mater was fired because ten years earlier his Ed.D. was mistakenly changed to a Ph.D. in the college catalog and he did nothing to fix it. --Drbhh (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a really good question. However, to accuse them of playing it loose without asking Brooks and/or GWU is a little--I don't know, something. You ought to just ask, rather than assume.  --Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed to language to more accurately reflect the references. In fact, (4) was already phrased in a non-leading way and so I felt it was best to also change (3) to use the same general tone. Let the reader's reach whatever conclusion they wish. --Drbhh (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversies Regarding Academic Degrees
Text removed:
 * DeMille’s education and academic credentials have been the source of some controversy. He holds one verifiable degree, a B.A. in International Relations (1994) from Brigham Young University. He also claims three degrees from Coral Ridge Baptist University (CRBU), 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.


 * The controversy exists because (1) it is difficult to verify three of his degrees earned from the now-defunct CRBU (via transcripts, a thesis, or a dissertation); (2) several written accounts exist which show that his degrees were awarded in various and contradictory orderings; (3) a 1999 curriculum vitae includes a B.A from George Wythe College (the institution which he founded) but subsequent curriculum vitae have been revised so as to no longer list the degree; (4) a separate degree, the B.A. from CRBU earned in 1992, was included in a 2006 curriculum vitae but inexplicably omitted from curricula vitae published in 1999, 2001 and 2002. ; and (5) he has admitted to, and expressed humiliation and regret for, obtaining “degrees” from two diploma mills, including a Juris Doctorate degree from Louisiana-based LaSalle University. 

I have removed this section temporarily until we can fix it. AS it stands it contravenes WP:NOR.

The statement "The controversy exists because" needs to be followed by text demonstrating that there is a notable controversy. It needs to show that someone is criticizing him, and show that the level of that criticism, and its reception, is notable. Then it can give details in the form: "those critics allege ...". We record a controversy NOT because we can demonstrate to the reader that there are discrepancies in his statements, but because attributable people have pointed out those discrepancies - and the sources show that this criticism is significant.

It may seem like a pedantic difference but it is on this that NPOV hinges.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not say 'controversy' unless there is external evidence of a controversy. If DeMille apologized in any way (which 'humiliation and regret' suggests) then whatever statement he did make can certainly be quoted. We should at least give our readers the complete sentence in which he spoke those words. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We could easily rewrite this section and not use the word "controversy". That burying thing I mentioned above...this is what I am talking about. Anything negative gets removed with the objective of limiting information to what is wholesome and good. Why not just edit than delete? -- Storm  Rider  18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So it will be something like, "The controversy exists because an editor of wikipedia published original research in the article there, prompting DeMille to respond thus: '-'" I would appreciate comments on my assertion that no demonstrable notability on this topic existed independent of the original research and long-standing negative article on the subject on Wikipedia. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, and now we have a whitewashed article and this fellow looks like the next Messiah to the world of education. I think I am done with this article; it simply is not worth the effort. Here, please take this pair rose colored glasses, I have no need of them. -- Storm  Rider  18:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

comment
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), 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 ???? ,


 * The degrees are listed in a slightly different time sequence in his 1999 CV, his 2001 CV and that for 2002. On his 1999 CV, he also includes a  B.A. earned in 1992  from George Wythe College , 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Unless there are sources making something of this, we should ignore it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

professional
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)


 * 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.-- Storm  Rider  18:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Rework and mention of criticism
I've reworked the article to put emphasis on what makes DeMille notable—his role at GWU and his works. Since the criticism debated on this page is "is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources," a concise, factual blurb about DeMille's past indiscretions is appropriate per WP:BLPSTYLE, which I have added for your review. Best regards —Eustress talk 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be appropriate to indicate that he "allegedly" received a Coral Ridge BA, or "claims to" have received it, as the evidence is compelling that he made up this degree around 2005. I have added this wording to the article. --TrustTruth (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Scott MacDonald, you said using the word "allegedly" is verboten on a BLP, and that I should instead say that a notable source disputes it. The problem with this is that it pushes us toward original research, which is also verboten. I'm troubled by the edit I just made in response to your request.


 * We can call things as we see them here on the talk page (which we can't do in the article), and I think it's obvious that he made up this B.A. to fill the sequence gap once he was forced to admit that he didn't get the BYU B.A. before his MA and doctorate. Including the B.A. wholecloth with no qualification is clearly troubling. Wikipedia isn't meant to be propaganda or a PR tool. Perhaps the best course of action would be to omit mention of the Coral Ridge B.A. completely, as presenting it in context appears to be such a delicate operation. I may be in favor of dropping mention of the degree altogether if we can build a consensus here. --TrustTruth (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it can't be shown from reliable sources that he earned a real B.A. at an accredited institution, I think it would be OK to omit it from the article completely. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The flow feels really awkward to me. Is there a standard template for BLP? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought ScottMac indicated we were to discuss how best to deal with the controversial material and reach consensus before it was reintroduced into the article...? TrustTruth has put it back in without comment here. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I must be looking at a different article or have a different understanding of the controversial material. I don't see any mention of the degree timelines or any of the degrees that have come and went from his various CVs. What I do see is a mention of the diploma mills which DeMille himself had admitted to using. This particular issue is very well-referenced and has been discussed ad nauseum here already. You have already said that you feel this should be a part of the article and you have already agreed with much more scathing versions of the article so it seems very inconsistent of you to come back and recant, now that you have the authority of ScottMac to back up your statements. I am getting the feeling that you won't be happy until your guy, DeMille, is sainted. --Drbhh (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I've been difficult to deal with, but I swear I was asking a question in good faith. I agree that the degrees should be reflected, I just thought that the discussion and language was going to be vetted here first, and that the admin wanted to sign off on it before we put it back in.


 * Guys/gals: I don't want the guy sainted. I don't want to hide his story from the world.  I don't have a problem with the way it's said here.  I back off from what I said there if it sounded like a complaint.  I was asking a procedure question.  Remember, I'm only ten days old here. Please accept my apology for being a pain to work with. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia is not censored and it can be verified by reliable sources that DeMille engaged in questionable activity related to his notability as an educator (i.e., his credentials), in accordance with WP:BLPSTYLE something concise and sourced should be included—which is what I restored to the article. Let's leave the extant, opinionated coverage to the private blogs out there, and let's move on. —Eustress talk 02:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oliver DeMille's website
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Suggestions to Improve This Article
1.Education: the references to LaSalle and TIBS, being from diploma mills, do not accurately constitute "educational" achievements. Recommend a "Controversies" section which notes his association with these diploma mills, and his public response to questions about them in his personal blog.

2. The reference to his authorship of the "Christ vs. Satan" article should be removed; this book was not significant (can anyone even find a copy of it or reference to it outside of this article?) and he is not notable for it; it seems only to disparage the subject to note that he did something insignificant and later regretted it. Not encyclopedic content.

3. Recommend DeMille's website, www.tjedonline.com, be included in the box. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Controversies are best dealt with as integrated parts of the article; the controversies section should only be a temporary feature until that can be achieved. As these controversial items are already integrated well, no need to regress to a special section. Several of his publications for which he is not specificaly notable are listed; not sure why we would need to remove Christ vs. Satan. His website has been discussed many times, and the consensus seems to be to keep it off. --TrustTruth (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The ones noted in the body of the education section speak to his education and associations that led to his professional achievements. The C v. S title does not. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you tell me what is the basis for your declaration regarding "preferred policy" on representing controversy?--Ibinthinkin (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See this proposed policy: Criticism sections and articles. I lean toward #2. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the section you suggested. I think to suggest that #2 is "preferred policy" is an overstatement. I lean toward #1. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the controversial content is integrated well. It does not note DeMille's response to the controversy, and to do so in the educational section would be disruptive to the flow of the article.


 * I reaffirm that the inclusion of the Christ v. Satan title is non-notable non-encyclopedic content. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you -- DeMille's response that this was a glaring mistake is duly included. Removing this would be essentially censoring his history. Same with removing the Christ vs. Satan book. As for "preferred policy", those are your words, not mine. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems odd not to include the Jesus and Satan title. You say it is "non-notable non-encyclopedic", but you do not explain why? How is it different from his other titles?--98.225.38.0 (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We had an edit conflict. Let me try to salvage my comments in a meaningful way:


 * I disagree that the controversial content is integrated well. The objective of mentioning the diploma mill is presumably not to represent an advancement in his education, which is the point of the content in that heading.  It is presumably to reflect a point of controversy, which I assert is deserving of its own heading.  Furthermore, the content as presently constituted does not note DeMille's response to the controversy; to do so in the educational section would be disruptive to the flow of the article. I again suggest that a "Controversy" section be included, with a more developed discussion of DeMille's involvement with the diploma mills, as well as his personal response to the questions raised about it.


 * I reaffirm that the inclusion of the Christ v. Satan title is non-notable non-encyclopedic content. Other titles mentioned were either notable as a part of his education, or notable as his professional contribution and represent the connection between his mentors, his education and his professional life. The reference to the C v. S book does not do anything to inform the reader of the subject's notable history or accomplishments. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have nowhere suggested that we sanitize the history. I'm not sure where your suggestion that I am in favor of censoring the content is coming from. The only thing I've suggested be removed here is reference to a self-published book that we only know about because Brooks mentioned that DeMille mentioned that he thought in retrospect that it was a bad idea.  I am not saying we should remove that reference because he apologized for making a mistake and it's not polite to point it out, I'm saying we should remove that reference because IT'S NOT NOTABLE.


 * But for our edit conflict, you would have seen that not only do I not favor removal of the controversial content, I suggest developing it more, and highlighting it with big, bold letters: "CONTROVERSIES". Hardly censorship.


 * And the quote, "glaring mistake" was not DeMille's response, but Brooks' commentary on the choices he made. I think DeMille's comment on this is relevant, as he has made a public statement on the issue. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as censorship, it's not what you said, it's your actions. I'm glad you're willing to include controversial material, but as for what constitutes a controversy, that is highly subjective. In my opinion, the CRBU degrees are controversial, but you probably disagree with that and wouldn't want it segregated in its own section. Another reason it's better to integrate things into the article. You're right the "glaring mistake" terminology was Brooks's commentary from page 9 of his history. Should we replace it with DeMille's own words? "I was humiliated and angry with myself, and embarrassed and ashamed at my willingness to be deceived in order to gain recognition. ...When I found out it [the TIBS degree] was just a degree I'd purchased for money, I rejected and disavowed it. But it was too late. I had been an idiot and will probably always look like one for this. ...While these were valuable lessons for me, I unequivocally regret these mistakes--the first, a lapse in judgment, the second, an unwitting fool in an apparent scam. These matters have been publicly disclosed for years. There is no question that I was stupid and naive in my involvement with TIBS, and was disappointed on many levels, to say the least, with LaSalle." (from http://www.tjedonline.com/olivers-update.php?id=6). Surely we can synthesize something from this to replace the Brooks term. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What actions do you refer to? My only action with respect to this article in quite some time has been to engage in discussion with other interested editors regarding the article. By contrast, you have engaged the random points of discussion you find convenient, making myriad editing changes that defied the spirit of the dialogs that were taking place even as you edited.


 * I would have no objection to including a brief quote from DeMille. It think it would be appropriate. What do you propose?--Ibinthinkin (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) This book would indeed seem to be relevant because it is part of his body of work. More importantly, it appears to be part of his work that has been recognized as "one of two glaring mistakes DeMille made." There was obviously a period where DeMille considered a radical right wing philosophy that he has since backed away from. Not only it is encyclopedic, but would seem to be required to understand this individual's past and his growth. --98.225.38.0 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I found this article on him, which may assist in the conversation: here. It mentions the book and some of its quotes, which may also be useful in the article.--98.225.38.0 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Friend editor, you're late to the conversation.
 * 1. we previously had in the article an exhaustive list of DeMille's publications, including many which have been selling and reprinting actively for several years, and it was determined that only his most notable publications merited any mention here. If such titles as have sold thousand of copies in the past five years are not deemed notable for the purposes of this article, then certainly a title from 1992 with no ISBN or, frankly, proof of its existence other than the word of a friend of the author, should be scrutinized for relevance.  I have declared why I consider the other titles relevant, and why I do not consider this one relevant.  User:98.225.38.0, it would be valuable if you intend to continue contributing to our discussion here for you to register as a user. Obviously there is no requirement that you do so; it is merely a friendly suggestion to assist other editors in identifying with you by your handle; this is helpful when we direct our conversations to specific comments.  For me the numbers are harder to keep straight than user names.


 * With respect to the article you cite: it is also old news for the editors here, and has been deemed an unacceptable source due to BLP violations. It is replete with innuendo, error and ad hominem attack. For your assistance, let me refer you to Oliver DeMille's personal account of his educational experiences. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Reprise
I am new to the Wiki world, so have mercy.

I have made modest changes to several sections to remove more inflammatory language in favor of more NPOV-favorable wording. To my knowledge I have not altered major content.

In particular, I have acknowledged other DeMille activities where appropriate (e.g., educational efforts since 1994 under "education" section, as they are germaine to the discussion, as well as reference to his speaking under "works" section).

I believe that these additions reflect the more nuanced positions held by the mature DeMille of today, and will give balance to the overall piece.

My thoughts. Comments welcome.

I look forward to working with you.

Drew2longC (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the current language is inflammatory. It appeared you were trying to change it to favorable language, rather than neutral. --TrustTruth (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree that slight changes could bring a more NPOV. TT, could you paste the parts you would like to see considered here for more neutral word choice?--Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and welcome to WP, Drew2. No worries; I'm relatively new here, too, and one of the guidelines I like best is that we be patient and helpful with new editors ;-). --Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This sentence is troublesome, because though it may be technically true, it's probably not verifiable: "His educational endeavors since 1994 have focused on an extensive, self-directed program of reading literary classics from around the world along with more recently published works in the overlapping disciplines of government, politics, history, and economics." I know you're trying to make it clear that he continues to read and educate himself, but we already have a statement in the article that says "his subsequent studies had drastically revised his views," which I think pretty much covers it. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with TT that it may be difficult to verify--see my notes on this below in my numbered suggestions for editing.


 * I agree with Drew2 that is relevant to the article.


 * I disagree with TT's assertion that the statement DeMille reportedly made referring to the C. v. S. book relates to the subject of hand. That was a very specific comment about a specific subject (the whole account of which, I must hasten to remind, I have argued is not notable and should be deleted from the article).


 * No comment on DeMille's education since 1994 is included, although his advocacy of life-long education is the central theme of his "notable" professional life. To consider available sources for how he has followed this course himself would presumably be of interest to a reader of the article. Perhaps no reliable sources exist to make comment here regarding his education since 1994. If not, the article should not comment on it, no matter how relevant. This is not the place for original research. Anyone have info on this that might be of interest?--Ibinthinkin (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome. My thought is that this piece does need some consideration of subsequent educational efforts, given DeMille's advocacy for lifelong education.  I am not sure that the sentence I entered is verifiable except by noting the list of additional pamphlets that he has written and published via George Wythe University (which would appear not to have relevancy in this setting).  That said, a mere statement that "his subsequent studies had drastically revised his views" covers nothing, because it makes no effort to show whether or not his studies investigated anything that might make his intellectual evolution understandable.Drew2longC (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That statement itself is actually not sourced -- I checked the reference and couldn't find this statement, so I replaced it with a fact tag. It would be good if some reliable newspaper did a piece on DeMille that we could then reference. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose that the whole section referring to the CvS book be deleted. The book was not notable when it was written, is not notable today, and the fact that we do not actually have a statement from DeMille regarding the book that supposedly existed 17 years ago only serves to reinforce the question--why is this part of the article?  That a colleague thought it was a dumb idea doesn't add to its notability.  Remove the paragraph. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Still learning the ropes, all, but I think I have the courtesy part down. Thanks for being such good teachers.

I would agree with TT that a "citation needed" is a worthy addition to the last line of the "Education" section. I think DeMille's post-1994 record is highly relevant and should remain, but will clearly be all the better for rigorous verification. I am not aware of an unbiased source (regular print or online press, rather than blog) at this time.

Under "Works," what is meant by the "clarification needed" marker? More published titles is one interpretation, but it doesn't seem to fit with the prior discussion....

For "Works" para 2, is the request for citation to provide support for a shift in view point? I thank one could support this by noting that "A Thomas Jefferson Education" takes a much less polemic approach to the world than a "Good vs. Evil" work, whether or not one is a fan of TJEd.

For "Works" para 3, I would support Ibin's contention that a citation for conference speaking is already a matter of public record.

Drew2longC (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I put those tags on the books because I could not find them mentioned anywhere on the internet. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New Suggestions
1. editorial aside "CRBU was an unaccredited bible college" is superfluous and should be removed. the WP link to CRBU is provided in the article, and those interested in the background on CRBU may follow the link.

2. DeMille's association with LaSalle and TIBS should be noted in a "controversies" section, with his comments on the experience included.

3. Comments regarding his educational pursuits since 1994 need citational material (as evidenced by published works? comments from his writings? or do we accept that this is general knowledge? quit laughing, TT. I know that's not going to fly, LOL)

4. need citation on the reference to Face to Face involvement. Recommend use of the audio cd's of the seminar series, of which DeMille is the presenter on several. this is a little tricky, because we don't want to promote a product. Perhaps by expanding the works section with a list that includes the titles he authored and which are a part of the F2F series we cover this base without being sales-ey.

5. recommend removal of the middle paragraph in "Works" section. The Christ v. Satan title is not notable, and the other content is already covered in early history and education.

6. On second thought, might as well remove the first paragraph too. If we're going with notable, let's stick to notable. begin works section with "In 2000, DeMille...." This does not close the door on the thought that there may have been previous works, and highlights the one for which he is notable.

7. Anticipating a question here: for most of those with sufficient interest to look up Oliver DeMille on wikipedia, the fact that he is a frequent keynote and presenter at conventions and seminars is common knowledge--indeed, for most people this IS what he is notable for--and does not require gymnastical citations. any google search on demille will show multiple results for years on back that make note of this as well, for those who come without such common knowledge. Recommend we let public record speak for this one. To cite the individual online ads for events seems out of place and promotional.

8. Twice in the personal life section DeMille is misquoted. The "glaring mistake" one can be remedied with a controversies section that actually quotes him. The satisfactory program thing is editorializing again. Recommend we just stick to the basic encyclopedic fact of "...B.A. in International Relations from BYU", period.

That's my two cents. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that he is a frequent keynote speaker at homeschool conferences. That's fine to include I think. I do disagree with #s 1, 2, 5, and 6, as you can read in our previous discussions. I agree that DeMille's own words should be used in describing LaSalle, TIBS, and C v. S. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For the sake of clarity and continuity, could you please reintroduce your arguments against 1,2,5 & 6 here?--Ibinthinkin (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The request for citation should be removed from the sentence declaring that he is a frequent keynote at homeschool conferences, for the reasons I cited above. It is a matter of public record well-known to most who would look to this article, and readily available to others who may seek to verify it.  To link to the flyers of individual events where he spoke seems promotional and bad form. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs to be verifiable to remain in the article, and flyers would not be a reliable source. It's pushing the WP:OR envelope in any case to reference several events he has spoken at and then synthesize that into the statement that he is a "frequent keynote speaker". That's what I'm advocating. But if the statement is to remain, it needs to be backed up. Try the Deseret News archives for starters -- he spoke at a homeschool conference in 2000, which is documented there. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that with such information being generally known to the readers, and/or easily verifiable to readers without particular special effort (google "oliver demille keynote" and you've got several pages) that it makes more sense to leave it in the realm of generally understood information that requires no special documentation than to fabricate a single source for our convenience, or cite several in order to establish the historic pattern. I think in this case common sense needs to prevail. We needn't kill the thing with sources on a point that is not contended, especially when the inclusion of such sources would seem favorably prejudicial to the subject. This speaks to the issue of "generally acknowledged".


 * Have a look at some other articles and you'll see what I mean. The article on sheep will describe for the interested reader who knows little about sheep the range and types of fleece that may be found in different breeds.  There is no citation to a periodical for this declaration, because it is general knowledge and/or easily verifiable with minimal effort. The article on Costa Rica provides a citation on the statement that the economy grew 5% in 2006 after experiencing several years of slow economic growth.  There is no citation on the statement, "The central government offers tax exemptions for those who are willing to invest in the country." One is an anecdotal factoid that demands sourcing, the other is a fact that is easily verifiable as general knowledge, and unjustifiably burdensome to document.


 * I am suggesting that while there are many factoids in this article that demand independent sources be provided for the reader's convenience, the one regarding DeMille's history as a public speaker is easily verifiable as general knowledge and unjustifiably burdensome to document. By this I don't mean that it's hard work to document, but that such documentation as would necessarily be recurred to saddles the document with issues of whether we are promoting DeMille or a particular venue, and is not necessary for the strength of the statement to stand. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, but I still think it needs a citation. I googled <<"Oliver Demille" keynote>> and got 257 results. The ones actually related to a homeschool conference were mostly LDS homeschool conferences, Utah homeschool conferences, and his own (or TJEd connected) conferences. In contrast, I get 1,430 results when I do the same search for John Taylor Gatto, and the results reflected a wide swath of homeschool conferences. I guess I'm just not convinced that the statement warrants inclusion without proper citations backing it up. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So your objections are, 1: Gatto has more hits on the search; 2: Most of the events he speaks at are close to where DeMille lives; and 3: Many of the events are TJEd-related. Okay, I'll bite.


 * 1. I don't think I'm trying to make a case of Gatto v. DeMille.


 * 2. That he apparently prefers to let others accept the invitations that require more travel is not a rebuttal of his record.


 * 3. I'm not sure what your point is regarding the TJEd conferences. They happen all over the country and Canada, and sometimes DeMille speaks at them. Are you saying that if it's a TJEd conference, his record as a public speaker is not relevant?  TJEd is an important movement in homeschooling, and the circular argument that because he actually wrote the book his appearances at myriad conferences attended by thousands of educators don't count is kind of weird.  Were it not for the book and the conferences we wouldn't have an article about DeMille in the first place. He may have written the book, but he didn't manufacture the convention attendees.


 * 257 results on that very narrow search (certainly there must be other references to DeMille's public speaking that do not use the word, "keynote") is clearly a public record of being a featured public speaker.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

CVs
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)


 * 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)

NWO:CvS
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)

notability
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)

James Kirk Diploma Mills
Here is an excerpt from the WP article on "James Kirk Diploma Mills":


 * "According to John Bear, in 1997 LaSalle University was sold to new owners who operated it as a legitimate operation until January 1999 (however, during this period some students were still doing substandard work for the old LaSalle programs). It continued to operate under the LaSalle name from January 1999 until October 2000, during which time all academic work was intended to meet accepted academic standards. Beginning in October 2000 and continuing until its final closure in the summer of 2002 it used the name Orion College.[6]Pat Brister, a leader of the national and Louisiana Republican Party, served as chief executive officer and chairman of the trustees of Orion College during its brief existence."

Here is an excerpt from Oliver DeMille's comments on his experience with LaSalle:


 * "I learned about their program in an airline magazine while flying. It was a name I had heard of (I later learned that there is another school with the same name), and they were offering a correspondence program in law. In this case, rather than seeking to have my previous work recognized I was actually embarking on a new educational experience, and it seemed like a great opportunity.


 * "The subject matter on the list of courses was what I would have expected--torts, case law, corporate law, etc. There were required texts, prepared booklets with essay questions, research projects and the like. Work I submitted was returned to me with grades and instructors' comments. I had no indication based on my interactions that the program was not facilitated by a legitimate educational institution—in fact, it was similar to other correspondence courses I had taken elsewhere.


 * " learned later that the school's founder had been jailed for fraud relating to selling diploma-mill degrees through a number of different entities, and that the later owners operated it as a legitimate degree-granting institution for a few years before changing its name to Orion University, which later went out of business.


 * "While I did not find the program challenging in the extreme--it certainly was not as rigorous as my work with Dr. Skousen--neither did it constitute a degree-mill experience. For my part, I actually did gain some valuable knowledge through my studies with LaSalle. Due to the unfortunate association with the school's founder, the LaSalle degree will always have a taint. I consider it a life experience."

Based on the juxtaposition of these two, it seems clear to me that DeMille's account of his experience is consistent with the WP article: that although the founder was a scoundrel and was jailed for his criminal activities, the school itself subsequently ran as a legitimate institution. This being the case, I think that to highlight it as a diploma mill is misleading, and reflects a negative POV. There is no indication that DeMille was seeking to get a degree without working for it. I think the previous language is more appropriate: He got the degree from a now defunct institution. To link it to the James Kirk diploma mills is fine, but the nuance of calling it a diploma mill without the clarifying language that article provides is negatively prejudicial. Ibinthinkin (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The act of excluding it seeks to paint a prettier picture than the reality. Any casual reader will not know that the LaSalle he attended was not the actual LaSalle University, but one of Kirk's diploma mills. NPOV means this needs to stay. --TrustTruth (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The reality is that the LaSalle he attended was not a diploma mill, the link to the James Kirk article does clarify that it is not the other LaSalle University, and it also specifies the details of that LaSalle's history. The language as it stands is misleading. As this is a BLP, I propose that we leave the link to the James Kirk article and remove the diploma mill language until the matter is settled on the talk page. Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I revised the content regarding LaSalle to not only redirect to the James Kirk page (as before), but to also include the "(Louisiana)", as the redirect link shows. I think this does the job of clarifying, as does the statement that the awarding institution is no longer in operation. Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The reality, sir, is that the LaSalle he attended WAS a diploma mill. The James Kirk page confirms this. That's right, DeMille took a degree from a diploma mill. Is that so scandalous to include in the article? I think not, as DeMille admitted taking a degree from another diploma mill, TIBS. I don't know why you're being so sensitive about the LaSalle diploma mill. I really see no honest reason to keep your edit as is. Reverting. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me just add here that it is baldly dishonest to write "but has not cited this credential for many years as the awarding institution is no longer in existence." Are you kidding me? He doesn't list it any more because it came from a diploma mill! I can't imagine one taking a valid degree off one's CV merely because the awarding institution is no long in existence. Verified Facts: La Salle University was a fraudulent diploma mill. The man who ran it went to federal prison. This is clearly relevant, and not mentioning it severely misleads the reader. If you pick up one end of the La Salle stick, you pick up the other. Thanks. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. You raised a concern over the differentiation of the LaSalle University name, and I remedied it. Your energetic effort to ensure that the reader arrive at your intended conclusions is, I think, misguided. It is not our purpose here to lead the reader to form a particular conclusion, but to relate verifiable information.


 * When you consider "verified facts", please note that although James Kirk was jailed, LaSalle was not shut down as a diploma mill as were others of his ventures, and the article on him and his other fraudulent schools clearly indicates that the school operated as a legitimate institution. This is verifiable. DeMille states that his interactions with LaSalle were typical for a correspondence program, and that there was nothing in his interactions to indicate that is was anything but a legitimate degree-granting institution. This is verifiable.


 * I do think that to include the basic details of his educational history is relevant to the article; but to editorialize on a point for which he is not notable, giving particular effort to suggest taint or controversy when there is no effort either on the part of this article or its subject to obscure the facts, suggests an agenda on the part of an editor to cast a negative light on the subject.


 * I previously suggested that, as this is a BLP, this issue should be resolved on the talk page with the article not displaying the the contentious content. I know you know this is a standard procedure, and you should have no objection. WP:BLP dictates that controversial edits not be displayed while there is a dispute. Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I just revised it again, with a footnote on LaSalle, "Not to be confused with LaSalle University. This triple duty on helping the reader to arrive at a clear notion regarding LaSalle (link to OD's blog, link to James Kirk article, link to other LaSalle, indicating it's not the same) seems like overkill, and surely is sufficient on that concern. In accordance with available sources, and as he does not cite the degree, and as the awarding institution is not available to verify that a degree was granted, I have indicated with this edit only that "he studied law." It would be nice if other editors could weigh in on this.

Honestly, this feels like a lot of fuss over a point for which DeMille is not notable. I'm about ready to revise the article entirely to reflect only that for which he is notable. I think it would be a lot easier to arrive at an agreeable form that both reflects notable facts and verifiable sources and meets the needs of a reader who may be searching WP for info on Oliver DeMille. Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not enough. A simple statement that LaSalle was a diploma mill is all that is required. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added the simple statement "another diploma mill" at the end of the sentence. This also ties in with the previous sentence about the other diploma mill. That seems sufficient. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's quite tidy to have the two references to diploma mills follow together in a tight sequence. However, it's not actually the truth, so we still have a problem. TrustTruth, you're doing a lot of undoing referring to the talk page, but then you don't actually explain yourself here. That's inconvenient when we're trying to arrive at a consensus. I'll give my rationale another try, and hopefully we can make some progress. Please address my issues directly, or raise your own if you prefer; but let's resolve the conflict before returning to an edit war.


 * As stated before:
 * 1. On a BLP it is WP policy to leave disputed and controversial content out of the article until the conflict is resolved on the talk page. You have disregarded this twice to revert without discussion here.
 * 2. As noted in the available sources, to say that DeMille studied at LaSalle, a "diploma mill", is not accurate. I have added yet another source ( http://books.google.com/books?id=k67XC_7y5xEC&pg=PA273#v=onepage&q=&f=false ) to the article to illustrate this fact. And you have yet to comment on this other than to say, "YES IT IS!"
 * Why is this so important to you that the available sources should be disregarded? DeMille's own account, the history provided by John Bear and the WP article on James Kirk all three agree on this point. You have yet to comment on that, and persist in re-introducing that content. Make your case. Prove me wrong. But please do not add it back without discussing it here to justify your edits. To do so again would be bordering on vandalism.


 * TT, I know that you have very strong opinions about the subject of this article, and that's fine--probably you have your reasons, I don't know. But that doesn't mean the basic encyclopedic information about him should be spun, framed, or editorialized upon in a way to try to lead the reader to a particular conclusion about the man's character. Let the facts speak for themselves.


 * TIBS was a diploma mill, and DeMille's not shy about owning that gaff. But to use your expression... While we're picking up the two ends of sticks: if you are taking his word as reliable when he criticizes himself on the TIBS thing, you kind of have to take his word when he explains the other experience as well--especially when all other available evidence corroborates his account. We can't be selective on this stuff. And to try to spin it against him is not only a violation of NPOV, it's just plain irresponsible and mean-spirited in the case of a living person whose ability to provide for his family depends on his reputation.


 * If it turns out somewhere along the way that he's a scoundrel, no doubt verifiable sources will report on it and then we'll address it here. If he's just a guy with some foolish choices in his youth, let's report the notable and sourceable ones and leave the sensationalism to other forums that are much better suited to it.Ibinthinkin (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The new source you gave also identifies LaSalle as a diploma mill. It clearly states "1986 through 1997: LaSalle operates as a diploma mill." DeMille's degree came before 1997. Where's the controversy? Sure, he could have submitted real work. Your reference even acknowledges that, but in the same breath still calls it a diploma mill. I'm not using DeMille's own definition of a diploma mill, I'm using reliable, third-party sources' definitions. LaSalle was a diploma mill. DeMille took a J.D. from LaSalle. Therefore DeMille took a degree from a diploma mill. (and apparently learned some stuff about torts etc along the way) Nothing sensationalistic about that. Nothing even disputed (other than by you). How this implies that he's a scoundrel is beyond me. I never said that. --TrustTruth (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just made an edit that is extremely objective. It identifies LaSalle as a diploma at the time, acknowledges that DeMille (and others) did coursework that they ended up not needing to do, and even quotes directly from the reference you provided. Surely, you cannot dispute the factual basis of this edit. --TrustTruth (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry: when did DeMille get his degree from LaSalle? What's your source? And, for the fifth time: do not enter disputed content without discussing it first. Reverting. Ibinthinkin (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your reading of the available sources is quite different from mine. The founder of LaSalle was jailed for his fraudulent activities in 1996, and the school then operated as a legitimate degree-granting institution. I'm not sure where how you're arriving at the conclusion that DeMille studied there pre-96. What do you base that on? What we have here is bountiful references to the school itself for the reader to do their own study of the facts, and absolutely no basis on which to intimate that DeMille's degree wasn't just a degree from a legitimate school that happened to be founded by a jackass. We could tell LaSalle's whole story here, but that's not the point of this article, and the links are all there. Ibinthinkin (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So I need to show he attended before 1996 to use the wording I put forth. Is that correct? --TrustTruth (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OR Tag
What is the OR tag for? I don't think there's any unsourced content left in the article. Please explain, or it should be removed.Ibinthinkin (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Something can be sourced, but if you are synthesizing what the sources say into a thought, then that qualifies as original research. See WP:OR. I think the sources supporting the statement "DeMille also serves as a frequent seminar and convention speaker" need synthesis to support the statement. If you can find a source that actually says he's a frequent seminar and convention speaker--which you probably could--then it wouldn't be OR. Hence the tag. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So ... rephrasing the quotes in the footnoted links from "popular keynote speaker" to "frequent seminar and convention speaker" in the article is OR? Wow.  What can be done to yank the OR tag?
 * By the way, hats off editors for the great job at handling the controversy. I actually came to this article looking for insights on the specific question of DeMille and the diploma mills, and found it answered my questions in a very balanced way. Gandalf2000 (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to remove the OR tag. Seems a little contrived to me. Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The tag was justified, but I made the effort to resolve the issue. Unfortunately, I found another instance of OR. A basic principle to keep in mind is that you can't cite a bunch of sources, draw your own conclusion from the sources, then write that conclusion in the article. That is original research. This second instance relates to DeMille's political views now being "centrist". Prove it with a reliable, third-party citation. Even prove it with a statement from DeMille himself, which you could couch as "DeMille now refers to himself as a centrist." But you can't draw your own conclusion and write that. Hence the tag. --TrustTruth (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

New World Order
I have restored reference to DeMille's first book, on the subject of the New World Order. Just because publication of the title is now ostensibly embarrassing to him does not negate the fact that he wrote it, people read it, and it continues to be cited by others. Wikipedia is not meant to be a glossy advert from an article subject's PR machine; it is meant as a presentation of facts. --TrustTruth (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TT: long time no hear! I needed a break from WP. I'm glad to be back. It's fun for me again. And it turns out I have fresh eyes for you as well. I believe now that while you do have strong opinions, it is not your intention to do injury to the truth or the people involved. May we start fresh?


 * The reference to the NWO book was removed not because it was "ostensibly embarrassing to him" but because it was not notable. Please see talk page where this issue was discussed previously. This whole article is strained for source material that meets the WP standard for reliable, published sources; and yet since DeMille is a public figure it was passed over for deletion. To refer to a pdf document for biographical information to round out this article is perhaps reasonable, since the article has to exist in some form. To use a pdf document the sole source to locate factoids and minutiae for inclusion is probably not as reasonable.


 * I did like the change that resolved the OR tag issue. Good work on that one.


 * I wonder why you suppose that the inclusion of the word "freedom" is not appropriate. The whole point of the TJEd book cited is education for freedom, not education for its own sake; and most of his other works are about freedom, including the college he founded.


 * What was your rationale for modifying the education history? Was there a particular problem with the way it was worded, or the information included? As I stated in the edit summary, it seemed relevant to note that DeMille was the source of this information as it has not been reported in any third-party publication. Probably we can find some middle ground that doesn't feel so "sunshiney" to you, and I have no problem with that. Ibinthinkin (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bigger problem than notability, and might require a revision of the article; I haven't looked at it in this light, but will do if I get a chance later. The pdf is a dead link. There is a reporting form you can redirect to in order to request the missing page, and I did that. I just got word back that the file is no longer hosted on the server. TT, you've had luck in the past with wayback or whatever. I'm not familiar with that. Can this help us retrieve the source? Ibinthinkin (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I supplied new sources where I could. Let me know if you can get that pdf back into play.Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please justify in what way DeMille's New World Order book is non-notable before deleting again. DeMille acknowledged this as a mistake of his past precisely because of its association with him. When in doubt as to notability, a sourced fact should remain. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP policy governing the treatment of biographies of living persons specifies that discretion and restraint should be foremost in the minds of the editors, and disputed content is appropriately removed while under discussion.


 * The burden is not to prove that it's not notable, but that it is; and, in addition, that it can be cited to reliable, published sources.


 * To illustrate my point by using absurdity: let's just publish the Brooks pdf here as Oliver DeMille's history. Discuss. Ibinthinkin (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

DeMille's account
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)
 * I sourced to the new location of the content. Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Issue (POV, promo, neutrality, etc.) and Problems With Respect to Wythe
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)


 * 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)

Tags
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)

Works
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)

History
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)