Talk:Clark Aldrich

Removed prod

This article was proposed for deletion. I have removed it given that a Google News Archive search comes up with a number of articles which indicate notability. [1]

I really like Wikipedia and think that it is growing in value month-by-month, year-by-year, but I really don't understand decisions like this - I mean, surely someone who is a published author deserves an entry here. Why can't that be taken as a ruling? (by bcgstanley) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcgstanley (talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

I removed them for 2 reasons. 1. Wikiquote is for quotes and 2. WP:BLP requires that "All quotations...must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." Sean.hoyland - talk 17:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubious education claim should be removed

Under "Background: Childhood and education", the article states "He [Aldrich] received his Bachelor Degree in Cognitive Science from Brown University." According to Aldrich's Linkedin profile, he got that degree from Brown in 1989[2]. Unfortunately, Brown University does not seem to agree with this claim. I have a copy of the 1989 Graduation Commencement Program from Brown which lists every graduate. There is no one listed by the name of "Clark Aldrich". Unless someone can provide reliable secondary evidence to the contrary, I move that the claim for a degree from Brown be removed as unreliable. Occam's Shaver (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The trolls are laughing at Wikipedia over at GOMI. They think vandalized Wiki Pages are the best. They may be total losers, but they have a lot of free time on their hands. One has used Wiki Vandal for their name. However if you look up Clark Aldrich in the Brown Alumni directory, you get:

Personal Information

Name: Mr. Clark B. Aldrich '89 Contact Information

Home Address: Address suppressed by user. Business Address: Address suppressed by user. Email Address: Home: clark.aldrich@gmail.com Business: clark.aldrich@simulearn.net Academic/Degree Information

Brown University

Year: 1989 Degree: AB Degree Level: Bachelor of Arts

BTW the general technique of keep digging and keep attacking until you draw blood pretty much identifies you as a creepy troll with a personal vendetta. And given you are not bound by truth, we come back to libel.

Intrepid French Learner (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepid French Learner (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The reality is that anyone can enter any information that they want into an alumni form. Even the text you supplied repeatedly says "...supplied by user". Anything can be claimed when it's "supplied by user". Women who marry and take their husbands' names change those names in alumni directories all the time. Do you think that the Brown Alumni Association demands to see proof in the form of a notarized marriage certificate when a female alum says she's now called "Mary Doe" rather than "Mary Smith"? Of course not. That's why alumni directories that rely upon information being provided by users do not qualify as reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, since the Brown Alumni Association doesn't make the entries in their directory public, you're expecting us to take your word for it that it says what you claim it says.

As I said a month ago that I was going to do, I removed the dubious degree claim. Mike V reverted it. To clearly spell it out: an editor claimed here that Clark Aldrich earned a Bachelors degree from Brown University in 1989. Normally, such a claim would be relatively non-controversial and I would assume good faith on the part of the editor who added it. However, not only has no source been provided for this claim, per WP requirements, but there is absolutely solid second-party evidence that the claim is false. I provided the link proving this. As it clearly states in Wikipedia:BLP "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation...The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material...Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." (emphasis added) So even though I am not the one making the assertion (and therefore the burden of proof does not rest upon me), I have provided what is clearly a high-quality secondary source: Brown University's own graduation document from the year in question, which lacks mention of a "Clark Aldrich". The onus is on the editor who claims that Aldrich received his degree at Brown that year to provide the necessary evidence, or face having the claim removed. Consequently, I will re-revert my edit to show that the claim, as presented, is dubious. The only way to remedy this is to follow WP guidelines and provide sources that meet WP guidelines, or remove the claim entirely. If Mike V (or anyone else) should revert my edit, I will apply for protection under the Wikipedia:3RR. Occam's Shaver (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Third-party sources provided. Nikthestunned 09:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Nik, but your third-party "sources" were provided, I've no doubt, by Aldrich himself, and not fact-checked by those three "sources". Rather than being reliable sources, they're nothing more than hearsay. I have provided documentation from the University itself that refutes your third-party sources, and they clearly show that no such person as "Clark Aldrich" received a Bachelor's degree from Brown in 1989. Can you explain this discrepancy? And in such a situation, are you really going to advocate for accepting the sources you listed over that of the very institution from whom Aldrich claims to have received his degree?! Occam's Shaver (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There can be no more authoritative source on this matter than a physically printed, contemporaneous document from the University itself. It easily trumps anything that Aldrich has subsequently claimed, or any third-party (such as a webzine) has claimed about him since, after all, they're just going by what he tells them. So, instead of them just continuing to prevaricate, I challenge Mike V, Nikthestunned and Intrepid French Learner to actually look at the scan of the 1989 Brown graduation commencement ceremony program and explain why no one named "Clark Aldrich" is listed there. That is the crux of this entire dispute. So, answer these two simple questions:

I think you need to look at and understand our guide on identifying reliable sources before continuing this line of argument. Those sources are reliable as far as Wikipedia is concerned, which means they're reliable in this argument discussion. Nikthestunned 08:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Our guide", Mr. Wikipedia Nikthestunned? So, just to be clear: you are refusing to look at the second-party source that I provided, and are instead claiming that the third-party sources just provided take precedence, correct? Ironically, "your" guide on identifying reliable sources says this: Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. Now, which of the sources that have been provided are secondary? -- the three on-line sources that have recently been added, which simply state that Aldrich received his Bachelor's degree from Brown (which was certainly just based upon what Aldrich told the interviewers), or the source I provided, which comes from Brown itself? Obviously, it's the latter; the former are all third-party sources, since they are simply repeating what Aldrich told them. So "your" guide actually refutes your argument. Regardless, I've looked at the three tertiary sources that were just provided. Have you looked at the secondary source I provided? Are you going to? If not, why? Occam's Shaver (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Nikthestunned, I see that one of the sources you have just added to support the claim that Aldrich earned his degree from Brown is a back issue of Conduit: a Research and Alumni News Magazine, published by Brown University's Department of Computer Science, and more specifically, the article in it titled "Computer Games and Formal Learning Programs". Since you provided this article as a reliable source to support your assertion, can you please tell me the full name that it gives for the author of that article? Occam's Shaver (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I provided a source for some information in an article - if you don't feel it's a reliable source either remove it or take it to the BLP noticeboard, where I see you've already tried to make this argument before and have been told you are wrong. Seems to me like you should give up on this... Oh, and the crossing out was as I don't like to edit talkpage comments and yes I feel I am indeed part of the Wikipedia community and therefore think it's perfectly reasonable to use "our"! I did look at your 'source' and found nothing of value to this article; not sure what you're trying to say with it but until I see a reputable source voice the same questions you're posing I'm going to disregard the whole concept. Nikthestunned 17:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The BLP noticeboard didn't "tell me I was wrong"; other editors in Aldrich's camp tried to tell me I was wrong. Conflating the two is about what I would expect from someone who thinks that primary and tertiary sources carry more weight than secondary ones. Nikthestunned wrote "I did look at your 'source' and found nothing of value to this article" -- other than the fact that the source (a) never mentions anyone named "Clark Bennett Aldrich", and (b) it does mention someone named "Clark Bennett Wezniak". "Nothing of value", eh? Again: Brown's own printed publication from the time of Aldrich's graduation carries far more weight than tertiary sources that relied upon nothing more than what Aldrich told them, years after the fact. You can prevaricate about that all day long, but it isn't going to change that fact. Again -- this matter would be very easy to settle: all you (or Aldrich or any of his supporters) would have to do is to cite a source from Brown, from when he was there, that shows that he did indeed earn his degree then. Photos of the original diploma would work just fine. And considering Aldrich already posted a (heavily redacted) "certificate of descent from Thomas Dudley", doing so should be a dawdle. Occam's Shaver (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The flaw in your logic is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. University graduation programs are not perfect and are often pulled from a database without significant review. If you search around, many schools state that they pull the names to be printed several weeks before the actual commencement. Students who don't file for graduation in time for publication will not be included in the commencement program booklet. Other schools require you to RSVP to the actual commencement to be included. These are just a few possibilities out of many different reasons why his name may be omitted. All that aside, Nikthestunned has provided the appropriate sources which verify the claims. Mike V • Talk 19:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality is disputed

The subject of this article has gained a reputation for trying to hide certain facts of his life through manipulation of online sources. This includes the use of sockpuppet accounts and "friends" to continue false allegations in online discussions.

Repeated edits and reversions of this article without coherent reason or support strongly indicate a lack of neutrality on the part of those individuals. The most egregious behavior is by one particular editor, Intrepid French Learner. The handle "Intrepid French Learner" is the that of a former frequent (and obsequious) commenter on the website run by " Clark Aldrich" and wife. While the "Aldriches" have removed commenting from their site, the comment history of this individual handle can be found in archived content. This individual is biased, and a longtime admirer of the "Aldriches," and hence not a neutral voice for editing.

Wikipedia has rules for editors, and those who wish to edit are expected to abide by them. This is clearly not the case with this particular editor up to this point.

Due to the repeated and unjustified removal of information from the site by biased individuals this neutrality tag is justified. Do not remove the tag.

--Elliotspitzerforever (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed your tag as I don't feel it's appropriate to the article - which points in particular do you have problems with? RE: The edits of the above editor, they have been reverted almost without exception due to them not being supported by reliable sources. Cheers, Nikthestunned 12:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Your feelings about the tag are irrelevant. This talk page amply demonstrates that the neutrality of the article is widely disputed. This is a very clear case. Please stop being a disruptive editor. Elliotspitzerforever (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The article as it stands is well sourced and seems to include all the information available in reliable sources. Can you show which parts are not properly cited or unbalanced and provide sources to support these claims? Here is the policy regarding reliable souces, please read it and understand it before re-adding inappropriate sources to the article. Nikthestunned 19:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)