Talk:Suzanne Segal

'ToDo'

 * Expand spirituality section, visits to various gurus, and her teaching
 * Free or released photograph of her?
 * Integrate blockquotes if necessary
 * Google Books links in refs
 * GA nomination

feel free to add to this list or remove completed items Ocaasi c 19:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo

 * I think a photo is available in the public domain (back cover of the book).I don't know where to put the photo. http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0095.htm
 * Is the "Check Afterword" done? (yes, I think I did this well enough!?!). Vanlegg (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Great job on the afterword. Public domain has a more technical meaning that just publicly visible.  In order to add a photo of Segal we would probably have to get it from someone who knew her personally and was willing to upload that photo and release it under copyright.  If you think Wikipedia's notability guidelines are not intuitive, you have no idea how restrictive copyright is.  Advice:  read WP:IUP and WP:NFCC.  Then cry.  Then write: The Estate of Suzanne Segal c/o Steven Kruszynski, Executor P.O. Box 218 Stinson Beach, CA 94970 ... and see if they can upload a photo for release for her Wikipedia article.  If it's on Flickr, they can do it themselves.  If they are planning to upload it to Flickr they might need to send an email.  Also, anyone who studied with her, or knows her personally, possibly the Wright Institute, who had an original photo or a photo they held the copyright to, could choose to release it under our license.  If you want to track down one of these connections, the license they have to release it under is basically giving it away forever--anyone can use, re-use, modify or make profit from the photo.  So they have to know that. Ocaasi c 03:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wright Institute

 * I looked for the citation to the Wright institute and couldn't find it but found an interview in which she mentions getting a PhD. I don't know how important the actual institution is, so I simply deleted it - naturally no objection to replacing it if an actual citation can be found.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WLU, This was mentioned in her book Collision on page 104 (I finished the doctoral program) and on page 102 (I had transfered to The Wright Institute )  Vanlegg (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We have RS confirmation that she received degree in psychology (from secondaries which likely used Collisions as their source), and I'm not opposed to using an RS for this kind of primary 'augmentation', perhaps per WP:BLPPRIMARY. (There's no BLP issue, since it's her own testimony, and she's not living anymore, but BLP is typically the most conservative of the content policies).  I think any RS issue is unlikely; she's an expert in her own experience and was well respected among her peers; she detailed her interactions as a psychologist and with other psychologists whom she later taught--so I don't think the accuracy of the reference is in question.  Which means it's mainly a Weight issue, as no independent RS have mentioned the name.  I don't take weight that seriously in this case, particularly when there is no contradicting information.  We have information from the subject, we can attribute it if necessary, and it adds detail to her life--particularly, it makes concrete that despite the esoteric and trippy adventure she described, she was a serious thinker as well, educated and versed in modern psychology (which has a few some esoteric and trippy branches of its own, but that's not really the point).  The rest of the article does enough to distinguish between the psychological and transcendental aspects that I'm not concerned about giving readers any wrong impressions about her by mentioning the name sourced to Segal.  WLU, I don't know if that was an objection of yours anyway, but since I thought of my response ahead of time, that's what it is/would have been. Ocaasi c 03:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so suspicious that I think every person of iffy notability is inherently motivated to lie :)
 * If Collision sources the Wright institute, I've no problem using it as a source. The citations to Collision are getting complicated enough that it may be worth switching to Harvard footnotes.  If everyone agrees, I can do it myself.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually called the Office of Alumni at the Wright Institute at tel. (510) 841-9230 . They confirmed her degree and the year. Having mentioned our debates, she said give them my number and please have them call. She had fond memories of Segal.Vanlegg (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We are never permitted to adjust pages based on personal experience. One of our primary content policies is no original research, and that definitely counts.  Though I have no issue with noting the institution based on the current source but I have removed the information sourced to the phone call.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WLU, This is doesn't conflict with no original research at all (please reread the guideline).
 * "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for it exist.
 * So too this information is in line with Verifiability, when a "contactable" source is sited. By the way, you are welcome to "call" in order to verify it for yourself. Likewise, you can "read" the books sited also, if you wish to verify anything else. I really love working with you. It is so much fun being nudged to use the "editing guidelines", it seems we will both profit from our comradery. I catch on fast, many thanks to your gracious assistance. Blessings. Vanlegg (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Finally I have the right second source as per  Thank you all who are helping me get this right. Vanlegg (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a massive difference between general knowledge available to nearly anyone in the world (not to mention something trivially sourced, that's essentially the reason why it does not need a source).  Suzanne Segal's PhD thesis however, is not, which is why it does need a source.  I have frequently contacted researchers and the subjects of pages with questions about where the information could be found.  Barring OTRS requests, which are generally used to remove information, personal communications are not, and have never been acceptable.  A ProQuest citation which is mentioned at the RSN would be acceptable.
 * Please consider that the people you are talking to may know what they are talking about. I have never opposed including information, I have only opposed including unverified, unverifiable or poorly sourced information.  Sometimes we have to dig further to find appropriate references, sometimes we have to accept the fact that information we know to be true can not be included.  Such is the reality of collaboratively editing on a wiki.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WLU, Thank you for having patience with me. I appreciate your input. And you have invested alot in making this "clean", very generous. Vanlegg (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you do me two favours? Could you supplement the doctoral dissertation citation with as much information you can fit into the citation template, based on what the ProQuest database spits out?  We're actually citing the thesis here, the ProQuest information is merely for the convenience of any readers who want to verify the information electronically.  I would suggest adding the ProQuest number after the citation template (I can help if you're not sure of the technical details).  Second, could you check Collisions to verify the quotes that are currently attributed to Simeon & Abugel in references 7 and 8 of this version of the page?  Though we are supposed to say where we got it, in this case it looks like we have the original source of the quote and S&A isn't adding anything to it.  I'd rather just neaten it down to a simple citation of Segal, 1996.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Peacocking
Eeekster dropped the peacocking tag on the page, for promotional language, but I'm not seeing it. Segal really experienced a dramatic transformation, wrote about it, received worldwide attention from spiritual gurus, and became a focus of psychological research into depersonalization. If no one objects or points out phrases that are problematic, I'll remove the tag. Ocaasi c 19:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These are three peacock terms in the first paragraph, "popular autobiography", "book was popular", "noted spiritual guide". "Popular" is relative and should not be used... your, Eeekster's and my definition of "popular" is different.   If book won and award or was a #1 best seller on a major book list, then those are fact based.  Also, the article is really hard to read.  Alot of terms the average person doesn't know.  There is way too much quoting other sources.  There should be more of a summary and alot less quotes.  Bgwhite (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Popular is accurate but I'd need to find an RS for it. It really was a popular book in terms of sales and its impact in the New Age community, and among those interested in depersonalization.


 * The quoting is my guilty indulgence. I would like to keep them for Segal's writing, which is extremely illustrative of her mental state and the qualities that made others see her as a spiritual teacher.  The secondary sources should be integrated.  This is the first draft more or less, so the quotes serve as structure, sourced scaffolding.
 * Which terms were unfamiliar? I think depersonalization should be explained in lay terms, along with derealization.  Were there others? Ocaasi c 22:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. You say she was popular but another person wouldn't.  Have you read WP:PEACOCK?  It explains it better than I could.


 * "state of psychological detachment from her identity" and "spiritual guide" (priest? social worker?). From quotes, "fusion with 'the vastness'" and "The infinite emptiness I knew myself to be was no apparent as the infinite substance of everything I saw."  huh??  Some things are hard to explain to a "normal" person, say something in physics, Higgs boson particle.  All disciplines have their own language, talk to a federal worker or military personnel and they have "thousands" of acronyms.  Lawyers have Latin terms everywhere.  It may not be possible, but try to write to a "normal" person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs)


 * I'm pretty sure I get the point, I just think {cn} is a better tag than {peacock}, since the latter implies false promotion whereas the former just needs a good source. I don't think that 'popular' is an inherently bad word if it's used in the right context.  Not every adjective can be quantified--broken down to a literal ranking--but nonetheless some things are more known or better received than others.


 * I didn't realize the spiritual jargon came across with difficulty, but this is a field I've read in before. Some of the terms like spiritual guide are about as specific as things get for this area.  I could say 'spiritual teacher and writer' or 'spiritual guru' (though the latter is typically a term of very high reverence).


 * As for the mumbo-jumbo, the description of depersonalization is primarily using people's first person writing. I think it's fair to say that writing about consciousness, particularly abnormal consciousness is one of the more difficult tasks for anyone, and this conversation is somewhat ironic, since part of what made Segal's experience story so popular (!?!) is how clearly she described it.  Paraphrasing some of those sections may help, but as with all technical disciplines, something may be lost in translation (if it wasn't already). Ocaasi c 02:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the text is different now and I've removed the tag. Feel free to check again or re-add it if there are remaining phrases.  Better at this point, probably just to change or suggest changes for them, since I believe they are few, if any. Ocaasi c 03:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Spirituality Sources
''These are all from Google books. A quick search of the title will pull up page previews which can be incorporated. That section should focus on more prominent spiritual authors who identify Segal, especially those that comment on her book and depersonalization experience.''

The Awakening West: Conversations with Today's New Western ... - Page 271 Lynn Marie Lumiere, John Lumiere-Wins - 2003 - 336 pages - Google eBook CONVERSATION with SUZANNE SEGAL JLW: Suzanne, wed like to begin by asking how you see yourself, who are you? SUZANNE: I'll give you the straight answer here. There is only one answer that I can give you. I am the Infinite — no personal ...

How to Know God: The Soul's Journey Into the Mystery of Mysteries - Page 311 Deepak Chopra - 2000 - 336 pages - Google eBook - Preview A striking modern example, however, can be found in Suzanne Segal, Collision With the Infinite (San Diego: Blue Dove Press, 1996). SIX. CONTACTING GOD 1. Credible attempts to explain the soul in scientific terms are rare.

Moments of enlightenment: stories from ancient and modern masters Robert Ullman, Judyth Reichenberg-Ullman - 2002 - 287 pages - Snippet view Suzanne Segal's "collision with the infinite" remains a valuable and educational experience of a modern woman growing past her fear into bliss, alternately struggling with and discovering an answer to the ancient question, ... books.google.com

Meditation for dummies - Page vii Stephan Bodian - 2006 - 360 pages - Google eBook - Preview ... Pema Chodron, Jon Kabat-Zinn, Jack Kornfield, Joel Levey, Stephen Levine, Byron Katie Rolle, and Suzanne Segal. On a day-to-day level, I relied on the love and support of my friends and family. Barbara Green listened lovingly,...

Buddhist practice on Western ground: reconciling Eastern ideals ... - Page 240 Harvey B. Aronson - 2004 - 253 pages - Preview ... Epstein, Thoughts Without a Thinker; Rubin, Psychotherapy and Buddhism; Welwood, Toward a Psychology of Awakening; Bennett-Goleman, Emotional Alchemy. 27. Suzanne Segal, Collision with the Infinite (San Diego: Blue Dove Press, ...

Will yoga & meditation really change my life?: personal stories ... - Page 138 Stephen Cope - 2003 - 330 pages - Preview Richard's teachers include Laura Cummings, TKV Desikachar, Ramesh Balsekar, and Suzanne Segal. It was while studying with his spiritual mentor, Jean Klein, that all sense of separation fell away. Richard experiences this awakening as ...

Yoga Nidra: The Meditative Heart of Yoga - Page 91 Richard Miller - 2005 - 91 pages - Google eBook - Preview He holds a BS in psychology (1970), an MA in communication (1975) and a Ph.d. in clinical psychology (1987). Many gifted teachers have influenced him including Laura Cummings, TKV Desikachar, Ramesh Balsekar, and Suzanne Segal. ...

The Three Dangerous Magi: Osho, Gurdjieff, Crowley - Page 72 P T Mistlberger - 2010 - 714 pages - Preview A good case in point is the story of Suzanne Segal, an American woman and spiritual seeker who one day while standing at a bus stop had a deep and direct experience of no-self, of the inherent emptiness of the separate personality. ...

Una ausencia muy presente - Page 77 Jeff Foster - Preview Pregunto esto porque, hace unos años, leí el libro collision with the infinite, de Suzanne Segal, que, al parecer, tuvo una experiencia parecida. Pero ella, según dice, experimentó una ansiedad extraordinaria. ... books.google.com ► Bewusstseinstransformation als individuelles und ... - Page 185

Wilfried Belschner - 2005 - 280 pages - Preview Suzanne Segals Erfahrungsbericht Suzanne Segal geriet im Verlauf ihrer Suche nach jemandem, der ihr erklären konnte, was eigentlich mit ihr los ist und warum sie diese unerklärliche starke Angst hat, an verschiedene Therapeuten. ... books.google.com Himmel und Erde verbinden: Integration spiritueller Erfahrungen - Page 297

Tanja Scagnetti-Feurer - 2009 - 608 pages - Preview (Segal, 2000, S. 62) Was Suzanne Segal (2000) hier als Anfangsstadium einer spirituellen Krise beschreibt, wurde schliesslich ein mehrjähriger Prozess, in dem sie mit starken Ängsten kämpfte und auf verschiedenste Weise versuchte, ... books.google.com - More editions Mediteren voor dummies

S. Bodian - 2007 - 368 pages - Preview ... Byron Katie Rolle en Suzanne Segal. In het dagelijks leven heb ik enorm veel gehad aan de liefde en steun van mijn vrienden en familie. Barbara Green had altijd een luisterend oor en wist me als geen ander op mijn gemak te stellen, ... books.google.com - More editions Medizin und Spiritualität--ein Geschmack vom Heilen: eine ... - Page 19

Klaus Dieter Platsch - 2002 - 148 pages - Preview Vor kurzem habe ich dafür die schöne Bezeichnung „unendliche Weite“ in dem Buch von Suzanne Segal gelesen. Manche sprechen auch vom Nirwana – es ist in der Essenz eigentlich immer dasselbe. Es ist immer ein und dasselbe, das Eine. ... books.google.com Heideggers Phänomenologie: - Page 194

Gisbert Hoffmann - 2005 - 326 pages - Preview Ein reines ichloses Bewusstsein, ein Bewusstsein ohne Selbst dokumentiert Suzanne Segal in ihrem Buch: Collision with the Infinite 1996. Heidegger spricht immerhin einmal von der Möglichkeit .exzentrischer Erlebnisse' (Bd. 58, S. 247). ... books.google.com Erleuchtung für Anfänger II: Ein Handbuch zum Erwachen - Page 23

Hanns Ruchti - 2009 - 80 pages - Preview Erwähnen möchte ich hier die Geschichte von Suzanne Segal. Sie erwachte eines Tages ganz plötzlich als sie an einer Bushaltestelle auf den Bus wartete. Diese Fälle sind aber sicher die grosse Ausnahme. Zuerst kommt also eine tragische ... books.google.com Revolution in Stille - Page 173

Priyadevi - 2010 - 200 pages - Preview ... in der Gesellschaft entwurzelt und sie landete im Nirgendwo. in dem Bestseller von Suzanne Segal „Kollision mit der Unendlichkeit“ spiegelte sich das. es war eine Suche, sie war in einer kosmischen realität verloren, ... books.google.com - More editions Medizin und Mitgefuhl - Page 157

Klaus Dieter Platsch - Preview ... Aurum, 2008 Peter Russell: Quarks, Quanten und Satori, Kamphausen, 2002 Suzanne Segal: Kollision mit der Unendlichkeit, Rowohlt Taschenbuch, 2000 Christiane Singer: Alles ist Leben – Letzte Fragmente einer langen Reise, Bertelsmann, ... books.google.com


 * Here is another (from Marianne Murry) dissertation citing some of Segal's work.  I wanted to let you see how to integrate this. Vanlegg (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind we don't have to mention every single time her name appears. The dissertation that's already on the page doesn't add much in my opinion, nor does the current dissertation.  It's two quotes and two prose summaries of the book without any analysis added.  If it adds something substantive to the page, great.  But adding sources just to add sources never strikes me as a good idea - they should improve the page.  I can't see how adding what is essentially little more than a proxy for a primary source written by the subject herself really improves the page, but if it does then it does.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem mentioning them all on the way to later summary and synthesis. But that might be better kept on the talk page at this point.  The initial draft was mainly tasked with establishing notability in light of objections on that ground, and these dissertations go some way to doing that.  I agree with WLU that they don't contribute much, and this one in particular doesn't contribute anything except a slight addition of notability--it's literally just Segal's quote, used to illustrate the phenomenon of non-ego spiritual states.  We already have the quote.


 * The one dissertation reference we have included at least puts Segal in an analytical context. The other sources listed above are not actually academic ones but purely spiritual literature--listed here to add to the discussion of Segal's effect on the modern hindu/buddhist and spiritual community.  In her last few years she was basically treated like a Guru, and became one of a handful of names recognized as possessing a unique state of embodied enlightenment.  To be very crude about it: she gets name-dropped by some of the people whose books sell millions of copies.  She was the real deal as a spiritual luminary.  She was very much respected by the people who have the respect of legions of disciples.  That's part of her story in a different way (not personal, not scientific, but more sociological and communal). Ocaasi c 03:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OR :)
 * The lack of attention beyond a limited number of books may severely hamper the page. Notability has been established, there may be simply a lack of sources to add more information however.  Interviews might be a good place to start, where her own words could be used as primary sources to expand on her beliefs.  I'm not sure where parity sources may come into play, I wouldn't really want to expand with blogs or a lot of webpages (certainly not web fora!) but perhaps they could be dipped into for some commentary.  Otherwise I think we're already scraping the bottom of the barrel for what can realistically be said.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Websites and blogs have not been included yet, nor was I suggesting we go in that direction. All of those sources listed above in this section are published books by or about major spiritual authors. They are extremely useful for demonstrating or commenting on Segal's spiritual status in that community.  During her 15 year journey, she consulted with pretty much every major living spiritual teacher Guru. (Don't forget I've read a lot more of the sources than I think you've had a chance to).  Then she became one of those Gurus.  Among that crowd, she was famous and her insights were revered.  It's the only part of her story that hasn't been fleshed out.  You seem to have coughed.  Are you parched?  I offer you this beverage: |~|. Ocaasi c 03:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have at thee then. I'm extremely unlikely to flesh out the content of the page, and less likely to actually read any of those sources, but have no objection to formatting, proof reading, citation templates and tweaks, etc.  Now that notability is established (and it's not the execrable cheerleader version that was deleted) I have no problem with the page being fleshed out even by sources I'd consider relatively unreliable.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

'Moksha' is a Hindu term (as noted of this article) yet in the main part of article it's cited amid her contact with Buddhist teachers. A specific teacher/quote should be provided there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarity108 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Afterword by Stefan Bodian
Does anyone have a copy of Collisions With the Infinite which has the afterword by Stefan Bodian? I have seen it reproduced in full but want to check the quotes, pages, and edition. Ocaasi c 14:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What parts do you need? Vanlegg (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At the least, I need the parts quoted under ref [11] in Suzanne_Segal and Suzanne_Segal. Or, you could compare your version to this online copy http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/advaita-vedanta/73465-homage-suzanne-segal.html .  Incidentally, I'd really like to know how the last paragraph finished.  Ocaasi c 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ocaasi, That was on p 176. The text continues..._ and genuine, abiding awakening. By dying before this integration had occurred, Suzanne left each of us with the koan of discovering it for ourselves. Stephan Bodian  Vanlegg (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for writing that out. It's a truly poetic ending.  Did you get a chance to confirm the other quotes from the two sections?  There are 5 of them, all tagged with reference number 11, since they come from the same source--the Afterword by Bodian. Ocaasi c 03:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I put in the exact pages (hopefully helpful).Vanlegg (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Turned into a regular citation. I've actually cited a range of pages, which turns it from 3 different citations to the same set of pages, to a single citation used three times.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed text from lead
This text was removed:
 * After years of psychological exploration, when she was 27 Segal underwent a dramatic shift in her mental state, a break between her awareness and her self. As she was boarding a bus in Paris, she described, feeling hit by "...a silently exploding stick of dynamite, blowing the door of my usual consciousness open and off its hinges, splitting me in two. In the gaping space that appeared, what I had previously called 'me' was forcefully pushed out of its usual location inside me into a new location that was approximately a foot behind and to the left of my head. 'I' was now behind my body looking out at the world without using the body's eyes."


 * Segal detailed the experience in Collision With the Infinite: A Life Beyond the Personal Self describing her initial terror and confusion, the search to understand her condition in both psychological and mystical terms, and the second sudden shift that occurred twelve years later when her sense of being split from herself morphed into a profound sense of oneness and universal connection with the world.

The first paragraph is useful since it provides a definition of depersonalization, which is an unfamiliar term. The quote may not be necessary in the lead (since it is in the body as well), but I think the sentence, After years of psychological exploration, when she was 27 Segal underwent a dramatic shift in her mental state, a break between her awareness and her self is important both for the timeline and for a definition of depersonalization. The quote is intriguing, but perhaps it could be cut down to only: "what I had previously called 'me' was forcefully pushed out of its usual location inside me into a new location that was approximately a foot behind and to the left of my head. 'I' was now behind my body looking out at the world without using the body's eyes."

The second paragraph is critical, because Segal's experience of depersonalization had several phases. 1) Early childhood mind games; 2) Early adulthood Transcendental Meditation; 3) Sudden terrifying identity shift at 27 years old; 4) 10 years of feeling that way, exploring with psychologists and Buddhist/Hindu teachers; 5) 2nd sudden dramatic shift, this time to a sense of profound unity between her self and the world; 6) her own spiritual teaching 7) early illness and overwhelming waves of consciousness 'hits'; 8) advanced illness and relapse into terrifying dissociation of 3; 9) recovery of childhood abuse memories and reconsideration of psychological rather than transcendental themes; 10) death

I'm not sure the current lead needs to capture all of that, but I'm sure that skipping from 3 to 8, the first break to the relapse, gives the wrong impression, since it's not clear what she relapsed from without 5. Ocaasi c 06:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wright Institute, Office of Alumni tel.
I'm sorry, but a phone number to an office is not a reliable nor a practical source. From WP:V: "...material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source" (emphasis mine). The office of alumni is not "published". While the fact may well be true, it cannot be sourced to a phone number. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the phone numbers are not the way we want to be going. But any document from the office of alumni which included her name would work.  Regardless, the institution is mentioned in Segal's book and I don't think there's an RS or Weight objection.  note:  I removed the phone number.  We probably don't want random people calling it. Ocaasi c 22:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. That's about it really.  There's no objection to the details being included, the problem is the need for a reliable source.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the assertion being challenged? Lambanog (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The phone number and statement it verified has been removed three times now, but Vanlegg has stated he has found a published source for the information so it shouldn't be a problem from now on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)