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)

Source

Conduit, the magazine of the Department of Computer Science at Brown University, have an article about him. He studied there. They refer to him as Clark Wezniak Aldrich (see pp 6-8). If that is his full name it can and should be included in the first sentence per WP:FULLNAME. The article a good source that could be used for this article, which seems to be lacking sourcing required by WP:BLP at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, his birth name was Clark Wezniak; I have no idea where the "Aldrich" came from. The Bangor Daily News of 27 July 1989 refers to him as "Clark Wezniak, a counselor for the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset..." (Bangor Daily News) Clark also references Camp Chewonki on his business website ( http://www.clarkaldrichdesigns.com/2011/11/chewonki-illuminati.html ), so it's clearly the same person. "Wezniak" is the surname that shows up on Clark's public marriage record from 1991, accessible through Connecticut's state vital records database. Clark's father is Frank Wezniak and his mother's maiden name is "Tull". The webzine CEORoundtableBlog.com has an article about Frank here: http://ceoroundtableblog.com/2011/12/frank-wezniak-photovac-member-in-the-news/ Père Wezniak is likewise an alumnus of Brown (Class of '54) -- the same alma mater as Clark; one can see photos of him in this Brown Alumni webzine: http://alumni.brown.edu/classes/1954/events.html . Clark seems to have assumed "Aldrich" at about the same time that he married Lisa Eastwood, who runs the website "The Daily Prep" under the nom de plume "Muffy Aldrich". And BTW: this information is all sourced from public records. Any living person with a wiki that essentially promotes them and their work as being notable (and, for that matter, anyone who runs a lifestyle website about her own life) cannot expect to be able to conceal their real names from the public. It's no secret that Ralph Lauren was really born "Ralph Lifshitz", so Clark Aldrich's birth name being "Clark Wezniak" can't be concealed as classified information. Long story short: his birth name should indeed be part of the article. I would also argue that his wife, as a public figure whose website is largely engaged in self-promotion, should be mentioned; she's probably more widely recognized than he. Occam's Shaver (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the 1989 Brown graduation commencement book lists his name as "Clark Bennett Wezniak" ( http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/purl/purlResolver?id=/lilly/meier/printable/VAB8339-16336 ). By 2006, the Brown Alumni magazine "Conduit" is lists him as "Clark Wezniak Aldrich" ( http://cs.brown.edu/about/conduit/conduit_v15n1.pdf ), and he now goes by "Clark Bennett Aldrich". Curious evolution. Occam's Shaver (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

According to documentation here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27077549/Clark%20Aldrich.pdf), Clark Aldrich's birth surname was indeed Aldrich. Further, according to the same genealogy report, he is the 11th great grandson of both Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley. This is consistent with his bio here: http://unschooling-rules.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html#bio At this point, insistence by the troll community at Get Off My Internets of the birth name Wezniak is best characterized as libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepid French Learner (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BLP for what qualifies as a reliable source for living people here (and you should probably read WP:NLT). Sean.hoyland - talk 17:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Clark Aldrich was born, no surprise, Aldrich. See genealogy report here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27077549/Clark%20Aldrich.pdf

According to the same report, Clark Aldrich is the ninth great-grandson of Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley, first and second Governors of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The statement that Clark Aldrich was born Clark Wezniak is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepid French Learner (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Was Conduit, the magazine of the Department of Computer Science at Brown University linked at the top of this section, wrong when they referred to him Clark Wezniak Aldrich ? If so, are you aware of an explanation for the error, an explanation based on published reliable sources ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Intrepid French Learner wrote "Clark Aldrich was born, no surprise, Aldrich". Really? So, would you automatically presume that Ralph Lauren was born Lauren? In fact, he was born "Ralph Lifshitz". How about former President Gerald Ford? His birth surname was actually King. Cary Grant? (born Archibald Leach) -Tony Curtis? (born Bernard Schwartz) -John Wayne? (born Marion Morrison) So, it's nonsensical to presume that the surname someone uses later in life is the same as the one they're born with. Occam's Shaver (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Intrepid French Learner wrote "See genealogy report here: (link to a document from 'The Society of the Descendants of the Founding Fathers of New England')" That group is a very minor one and of dubious legitimacy. Google page results for it are under 1,500; compare that to other minor hereditary groups like say, Flagon and Trencher -- an hereditary organization for descendants of proprietors of Colonial-era taverns -- which still has more than 3 times the Google pages than "The Society of the Descendants of the Founding Fathers of New England". What documentation does that group require? Do they require certified copies of all birth, death and marriage records, like the General Society of Colonial Wars or the Society of the Cincinnati? Apparently not. Their website has a form that would-be members fill out and send in with fee. And why would the "genealogy report" have so many redactions? Why would anyone black-out every name in the generations between the 18th century and the present? And more to the point: why would anyone redact one of their own middle names? How could it possibly pose more of a risk to their privacy than their surname would? Occam's Shaver (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The name Clark Wezniak Aldrich does not exist outside of Conduit magazine. It is reasonable to assume it is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepid French Learner (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors don't really have the latitude to make assumptions. They need to follow the reliable published sources. If there are multiple versions and inconsistencies, as is often the case for a great deal of information covered by Wikipedia, they usually reflect the variety unless there is a compelling evidence based reason not to do so. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The above statement "Clark Aldrich's birth name being "Clark Wezniak" is wrong and, in the above context, libelous. The statement "Actually, his birth name was Clark Wezniak" is again, wrong and libelous in the above context. The statement "I have no idea where the "Aldrich" came from." has been answered numerous times, including here. It is his family name. In this situation, there is even a genealogical document stating that his father is Aldrich. Numerous similar assumptions written as fact - in the context of the comment - are wrong and again libelous. There have been two stalkers spreading similar lies in various online chatrooms, and for the most part, they have been kicked off by the moderators that have policies against personal vendettas, libel, cyber harassment, and stalking. Intrepid French Learner (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop using the word libelous per WP:NLT. I'm aware that there is a back story to this (that I don't understand) but the way to resolve this here is by following Wikipedia policy. The genealogical document is not going to be useful as a source because it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BLPSOURCES. Can you comment on the The Bangor Daily News source of 27 July 1989 that refers to "Clark Wezniak, a counselor for the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset". Do you know whether that is the same person as Clark Aldrich or a different person, and if so can you explain how you know ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Also you say The statement "I have no idea where the "Aldrich" came from." has been answered numerous times, including here. It is his family name. How do you know what his family name is and where is the evidence to support the statement. The genealogical document is not evidence. It has no value here in terms of content decisions so please do not refer to it again. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, "Clark Aldrich's birth name being "Clark Wezniak" is wrong and, in the above context, libelous. It is textbook libel. Beyond that, if Wikipedia as a system is broken, so be it. ----

Intrepid French Learner, it seems that you do not understand the meaning of the word "libel". Here's what Dictionary.com says:
"Libel -
1.a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
1.b. the act or crime of publishing it.
1.c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.

2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents."

NONE of that has happened. It is not "defamatory", "malicious" or "damaging" to state that someone has changed their name; hundreds of people legally change their names every day and for a variety of reasons; many of them perfectly legitimate. Second, in order for something to be libellous, it must be untrue. So even if it were somehow defamatory or malicious, you have in no way demonstrated that it is untrue. So please stop playing amateur lawyer here; it's not libel. Occam's Shaver (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Making assertions without supporting evidence, the kind of evidence that Wikipedia accepts, won't resolve anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Intrepid French Learner, but you seem to misunderstand the way that Wikipedia works. That link you provided is to a primary source, not a reliable secondary one. You understand, I trust, that anyone can make any claim on their personal website; citing them as a source is what is called a "circular argument". Second, there are a number of compelling secondary sources that refute your assertion. There are two possibilities; only one of them can be correct. Either Clark's birth name is Clark Bennett Aldrich and many other sources are wrong, or those sources are correct and Clark is wrong.
Clark states in a number of different places that he got his degree from Brown in 1989. I have a copy of the commencement program from that year. There is no one with the surname "Aldrich" listed. There is, however, a "Clark Bennett Wezniak". Can you explain this? It's possible, but unlikely, that "Conduit" gave Clark the wrong name when quoting him. But the Bangor Daily News article about the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset explicitly refers to a camp counselor named "Clark Wezniak". This is the same Chewonki Foundation Camp that Clark Aldrich is still associated with and lists himself as having been a camp counselor there. Furthermore, Ancestry.com states that one "Clark B. Wezniak", born in 1967 (which perfectly matches Clark having graduated from high school in 1985, as he states in a number of places) got married in 1991 Madison, New Haven County, CT. -- the same rather small town that Clark Aldrich is listed as living in today, according to a number of directories. There's a Douglas Wezniak who attended Groton, just like Clark lists himself as having done; another curious coincidence. Also, not that it's necessarily proof, but a gentleman and fellow Brown alumnus (class of '54, which would make him the right age to be Clark's father) named Frank Wezniak (shown in the Brown Alumni magazine cited above), bears a truly remarkable resemblance to Clark. http://alumni.brown.edu/classes/1954/images/marsh5509s.jpg and https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8484/8247170973_445de04151_z.jpg Frank Wezniak lives in the Boston area which is also where the Fenn School is, which Clark states that he attended. And then, there's this curiosity: on the Amazon.com page for Clark Aldrich's book "Learning by Doing", there's a glowing review by someone named "Bennett Wezniak", left on April 29, 2005 (the first review for the book). Now, what are the odds that someone named "Bennett Wezniak" would leave a review for a book by Clark Bennett Aldrich, if they were in no way connected? Or isn't it more likely that Clark Bennett Wezniak simply wrote a review for his own book? (I've no doubt that the review is going to mysteriously disappear ASAP, but it's been archived.) Finally, you say that the changes made to Clark Aldrich's wiki are due to "...insistence by the troll community at Get Off My Internets of the birth name Wezniak..." I didn't know what you meant by this until I Googled it and found the page you're referring to. But that doesn't explain why you, whoever you are, care what Clark Aldrich's birth name is, was or wasn't. Occam's Shaver (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Posting this issue to the living people board - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

To add another source: a number of genealogical databases/websites such as Ancestry.com, quote US Public Records Indices 1 and 2 as recording that one Clark Bennett Wezniak was born in Massachusetts on 3 January 1967, which is the same birthdate listed in a number of sources for Clark Bennett Aldrich. The genealogical sites also list people by those two names as having lived at the exact same addresses in Weston, MA and Madison, CT. As a nod towards privacy, I won't post a link to those addresses here, but suffice it to say that anyone with a few minutes and a search engine can easily confirm this to be true. Those sources also list the Connecticut marriage record for Clark B. Wezniak and Lisa Eastwood in Madison, CT in 1991. And who should happen to be listed in the incorporation record of Clark Bennett Aldrich Designs LLC? Someone named Lisa Eastwood. So it's kind of ridiculous to even be having this debate. No reliable secondary sources has been presented to demonstrate that Clark Aldrich was born with that name; the best that's been offered was a purported (but heavily redacted) chart of descent, purchased from an "hereditary society", posted on Mr. Aldrich's own website. However, a significant amount of evidence is available showing that he was born Clark Wezniak and then changed his name has, including genealogical websites and public records, school alumni records, newspapers, etc. There's nothing inherently wrong with someone changing their name; people do it all the time and for a variety of good reasons. But the zeal with which some are denying that this happened is misguided and ultimately, futile. Occam's Shaver (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that this digital clipping from the Brown University Daily Herald from November 11, 1987, settles this matter once and for all. It is a full-page article about Clark Wezniak (class of '89) and it includes a photograph of Wezniak which is patently the same person depicted in every photo one can find of Clark Aldrich. It is incontrovertible that Clark Aldrich was born Clark Wezniak; they are one and the same.The Brown Daily Herald, Wednesday November 11, 1987; p. 3 Occam's Shaver (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention the name "Aldrich" at all and as such is not appropriate for this article. What you are doing is called Original Research and is not OK for Wikipedia per: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves" Nikthestunned 12:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course the article "doesn't mention the name 'Aldrich' at all", User:Nikthestunned, for the simple reason that in 1987, he doesn't seem to have yet started using the name "Aldrich". It isn't WP:OR to simply connect the dots. This article states that Clark Aldrich received his degree from Brown in 1989. The published source from Brown's 1989 Commencement ceremony lacks the name "Clark Aldrich", but has the name "Clark Wezniak". The article I most recently linked to, from 1987, uses that name and is patently the same person. Your point is nothing but sophistry. Nevertheless, it's sophistry in vain, since anyone reading this will be smart enough to connect these facts with or without you conceding the point. Occam's Shaver (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I take it you still haven't read WP:OR so I have nothing further to add. Nikthestunned 09:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As fascinating as these birther theories are, I believe anyone who looks at photographs of Frank Wezniak and Nan Tull and Clark Aldrich will quickly see no family resemblance at all. I am sure everyone here has already done that, but are not linking to those pictures because they completely disprove the case, as with all facts that don't match up. Aldrich has a very strong family resemblance to his mother, shown in some photographs of them together. Don't pollute Wikipedia with stalker talk. Wikipedia is an aggregation of actual credible references, which everyone here knows, but again, conveniently ignores. Citations to troll fantasies belong on those creepy websites that are ethically challenged. Richard Press (the same guy whose primary achievement in life is cashing in his family business, and now will do apparently anything for public praise) has a site that is published out of a tenement in Astoria, New York that steals other people's photographs all of the time, has some of the most incoherent writing on the Internet, and gets excited by harassing people, including Aldrich. If you are proud of your research, share your real name and take credit. If you are a white male in some kind of mid-life crisis with too much education and too little employment who takes shots from the shadows, join Richard Press' Team Hate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepid French Learner (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The web site you are thinking of is called Ivy-style.com, and it is run by some unhinged nobody named Christian Chensvold. The guy is broke with maxed out credit cards and failing health. He is also an alcoholic. He did not go to an Ivy league school. The guy is also jealous of anyone with what he dreams of having, like a class or a good education. He keeps a list of people he hates by his bed. The simple fact that Richard Press set up Christian as some sort of puppet editor says everything about how weird Richard Press is as well, and what a bad judge of character he is. I actually think one of the trolls on this page is really Christian. In the past, Christian has made up fake names on his site to publish articles and comments. He has also received numerous complaint letters from copyright holders from photographs he has used without permission. A very creepy dude. Just my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftbstrd (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

All three of them, Chris Chensvold, Bruce Boyer, and Richard "Gutter" Press are such rotten people, and their collaboration around Ivy Style is an insult to Ivy and style. Here's a true story. Bruce Boyer invited people to his book launch. Chris Chensvold showed up, and took some unflattering pictures of one of the other invited guest. He put those photographs up on the site, and dozens of lonely losers left comments attacked the clothing and personality of the photographed guest. Christian egged on the harassers. Bruce Boyer did nothing to intervene or stick up for his guest. Talk about no style. It is sad to see Wikipedia being taken over by the same people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftbstrd (talk • contribs) 23:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This has got to be stupidest conversation in the history of wikipedia. Whose life is empty enough to care? If this stalker framework is correct, why wouldn't Clark Aldrich just take his mother's name and be Clark Tull if he wanted a WASPy name with a direct line to a US President? Get a life, everyone. Trolls have to troll and haters have to hate, but please use common sense now and then. How many months of your life did you stalkers spend on this? Please Lord, in my next life, bless me with the free time of a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Squeeze (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard Press has a son that works in Hollywood. That makes his support of a site that profits off of stealing other people's intellectual property very disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepid French Learner (talk • contribs) 12:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard Press must be a huge Trump supporter if he is BFF with Chris Chensvold. Do you ever notice how quickly Chris erases the comments criticizing Press? Chris tries to get everyone attacking everyone else but edits out all of the comments on him and Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Squeeze (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Yes, this entire conversation sounds like the same group of trolls who go around from web site to web site spreading lies and getting their kicks from causing trouble. Anyone who follows up with the so-called facts put up here will find logic flaw after logic flaw. Before anyone donates money to wikipedia, they should read this page. I do wonder if Wikipedia will have to change its anonymous user rules as the trolls take over more and more of the Internet, and try to back-door in content that is not approved for publishing on the real page because it is speculation, lies, and stalker talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepid French Learner (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, IFL. Journalists look for all facts. Trolls take 20% truth and mix it with 80% lies. The trolls claim the Conduit article has Wezniak AS A MIDDLE NAME. If one actually clicks on the article, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO WEZNIAK AT ALL. Obviously the Aldrich face does not match up AT ALL with WEZNIAK OR TULL, in any way either, so thanks for that. What other information are these stalker trolls hiding? This feels racist and misogynistic towards Aldrich's wife, and overall a low point for Wikipedia in general, but typical for the Intnernet. When editors can't tell the difference between trolls on some kind of joke/vendetta and real people interested in real information on real topics, and these pages become just another forum for harassment, it is time to close down Wikipedia and replace it with something else. And sadly, as with a libel lawsuit, the motivation of the authors of the content matters. Desire to harass plus wrong information equals real damages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Squeeze (talk • contribs) 13:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Jay Squeeze. I appreciate it. There is a kind of Intenet harassment called doxing, defined as "search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent." Doxing has many problems, including there is so much wrong content published on the Internet, and one wrong piece of content can be echoed very quickly. This page is a good example. Apparently there are a few trolls who never met Aldrich, never interviewed school chums, never met his parents, ignored or attacked documents with information that opposes their racist theories, but are still are VERY aggressive in their presentation of their theory. Doxing may become illegal in some places as a flavor of cyberharassment, and once again the editor of this page will be abetting. Aldrich shared a genealogist report connecting him to his father, ALDRICH, but the trolls literally attacked the credibility of the Genealogist, who was very well respected and licensed, BASED ON NOTHING but the fact that his report had ALDRICH as Clark's father. Malevolent doxing always involves cherry picking information, as is clearly the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepid French Learner (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly these helpful researchers are white and male. They may not even know that they are being racist in their comments. Toxic assumptions are never apparent to the people they infect. It is only the non-racists who look at all of this anger and obsession and faulty logic and draw those conclusions. I bet to other racists, these comments make perfect sense. Wikipedia may be getting more racist and misogynistic as is the entire web, but Richard Press' Ivy-style.com beats most other sites in terms of racism and misogyny by orders of magnitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Squeeze (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, anyone who thinks there is a family resemblance between Clark Aldrich and Frank Wezniak or Nan Tull is lying. Anyone who says that doesn't matter is a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepid French Learner (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I brought the Conduit source here because it's exactly the right kind of source, a reliable published source. Here is the version I cited (captured by archive.org) which says "Clark Wezniak Aldrich ’89 was the lead designer of SimuLearn’s Virtual Leader". Here is the current version which says "Clark Bennett Aldrich ’89 was the lead designer of SimuLearn’s Virtual Leader". Perhaps that helps to resolve something. I suggest you curb your attacks on living people here, abuse of editors and try to put a lid on the walls of text. The talk page is for discussing proposed changes to the article based on reliable published sources. I don't know the back story to the name issue and I don't care about it, but Wikipedia has rules that everyone must comply with and neither of you seem to have a clue. You should spend some time reading Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially WP:BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The observations are on the culture of trolls and Ivy-style.com, which is directly applicable to this conversation. Any lawsuit, for example, looks at the motives, not just what is written. These comments were first made in Ivy-style.com. Conduit clearly fixed their mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:4201:71C0:F4D9:2565:8DB3:B138 (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"observations" on the culture of trolls and Ivy-style.com are not relevant here and in fact any editor can remove them from the page if they attack living people or other editors. Talk pages are not for "conversation" about the subject, they are for proposing changes to the article based on Wikipedia policy. References to hypothetical and irrelevant lawsuits should be kept off the page too. See WP:TALK and WP:NLT. The kind of behavior that is commonplace in off-wiki discussions on the internet is not acceptable in Wikipedia and failure to comply with Wikipedia's rules on these matters result in blocks and/or page protection. On the Conduit name change, there is insufficient information to deduce the cause of the change from the source itself but from a Wikipedia sourcing perspective that doesn't matter. The source is currently a source for the name Clark Bennett Aldrich. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:44, 12 April 2016 (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. On the other hand, Brown University's Graduation Commencement program from 1989 does qualify as a reliable secondary source since it's a document published by the University and drawing from the University's own records, rather than from what an alumnus tells them years later. What's your explanation for why his name does not appear in that directory? You really do need to read WP:V before you go providing any other unreliable sources as "proof". As for me supposedly being a "creepy troll with a personal vendetta" -- sorry, but none of those apply to me. I have no personal interest pro- or con- the subject of the article; I only care that Wikipedia is kept accurate and reliable. No matter how many claims you make, they do not lead to accuracy and reliability; only reliable secondary sources lead to that. You claim that I'm "not bound by truth" yet you have provided no reason for anyone to believe that you are supplying the truth. AFAICT, there are only two possible explanations: either (1) your unsourced claims are "true" and the 1989 Brown Graduation Commencement Ceremony directory, the Bangor Daily News and the magazine of the Department of Computer Science at Brown, as well as the anecdotal evidence from genealogical sources that suggest that Clark Aldrich and Clark Wezniak are one and the same person are, for some unknown reason, false or (2) the three published sources are true and your unsourced claims are false. Which is more likely? Naturally, if Clark Aldrich thinks he's being libeled, he's free to sue. Of course, it can't be libel unless it's untrue, so he would have to provide proof that the claims made here were untrue. Notarized copies of the original birth record from the hospital where he was born and of his diploma from Brown should suffice. Easily done, right? But somehow I doubt they'll be forthcoming. Occam's Shaver (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, Intrepid French Learner -- are you sure you want to keep mentioning GOMI's thread on the subject? If you're unhappy about that thread, you may not want to drive the curious over to it. Occam's Shaver (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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:
1. Is anyone named "Clark Aldrich" is listed in that program?
2. If not, what is your explanation for this omission?
I can think of only two possible explanations: either Clark Aldrich didn't earn a Bachelor's degree from Brown in 1989, or Brown made some kind of error in the publication of the program. So, Mike V, Nikthestunned and Intrepid French Learner? How do you explain Brown's curious omission of "Clark Aldrich" from the graduation program? Occam's Shaver (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

Mike V wrote "University graduation programs are not perfect and are often pulled from a database without significant review...Nikthestunned has provided the appropriate sources which verify the claims." That's just laughable. And you're mistaking the "absence of evidence" from what we're dealing with here. My assertions here never depended upon Aldrich himself being absent from the Brown Commencement program that I cited; my assertion is that there's no one listed in that program by the name of "Clark Aldrich". See if you can grasp the difference between those positions. Next, you actually expect us to believe that it's more likely that the very university which allegedly granted Aldrich his degree, printed the physical document that was to be received and treasured by the graduates and their families, but omitted including the name of one of those graduates, than it is that the tertiary sources that have just been added -- who get their information, by the way, strictly on trust from the person providing it -- simply asked Aldrich "so, where did you get your degree", and didn't bother subjecting it to "significant review"?! Seriously? Do you expect us to believe that Excelsior College did "significant review" before they published that piece? I can tell you right now that they didn't. How would I know this? Because the information in the article on the Excelsior College website which was cited as a "source" is actually just copied word-for-word from Aldrich's own website. Here's what that "source" you provided states, under "About Symposium Participants: Clark Aldrich, Clark Aldrich Designs":

"Clark Aldrich is one of the top educational simulation and interface designers in the world. As well as the founder and Managing Partner of Clark Aldrich Designs, Aldrich is a global education visionary, industry analyst, and speaker who serves on boards of universities, of companies, and in the intelligence community (where he has Top Secret clearance). He is also the author of five books and editor of www.ClarkChart.com, a free database of simulations and serious games. Previously, Aldrich was the founder and former director of research for Gartner’s e-learning coverage. He earned a BS in Cognitive Science from Brown University (during which he also taught at a leading environmental education foundation), and earlier in his career worked on special projects for Xerox’ executive team. He also served for many years as the Connecticut Governor’s representative on the education task force Joint Committee on Educational Technology and volunteered on several non-profit organizations aimed at child advocacy."

Where have I seen that before? It's ver batim from the "Biography/Curriculum Vitae" on Aldrich's own website (I've bolded the identical text):

"Clark Aldrich is one of the top educational simulation and interface designers in the world. As well as the founder and Managing Partner of Clark Aldrich Designs, Aldrich is a global education visionary, industry analyst, and speaker who serves on boards of universities, of companies, and in the intelligence community (where he has Top Secret clearance). Clients include Cisco, Microsoft, Motorola, Department of Defense, Center for Army Leadership, Harvard Business School Publishing, HP, Shell, GM, UPS, McDonald's, and World Anti-Doping Agency. Aldrich is also the author of five books. He is editor of www.ClarkChart.com, a free database of simulations and serious games. He has been called a 'guru' by Fortune Magazine and a 'maverick' by CNN. Aldrich and his work have been featured in hundreds of other sources, including CBS, ABC, The New York Times, USA Today, AP, Wall Street Journal, NPR, CNET, Business 2.0, BusinessWeek, and U.S. News and World Report. Previously, Aldrich was the founder and former director of research for Gartner’s e-learning coverage. Earlier in his career he worked on special projects for Xerox' executive team. He also served for many years as the Governor's representative on the education task force Joint Committee on Educational Technology and volunteered on several non-profit organizations aimed at child advocacy. He earned from Brown University a degree in Cognitive Science (during which he also taught at a leading environmental education foundation)".

So, either Excelsior plagiarized Aldrich's website, or they simply asked him to provide them with his bio, and he did. To recap: four "sources" were just provided to support the claim that Aldrich got his degree from Brown. The first, a 2006 article from Businessweek Magazine, is a tertiary source and almost certainly got its info from Aldrich, not Brown. The second, a 2013 blurb from Excelsior College, is Aldrich's own text, so it's a primary source and therefore does not meet WP's standards. The third, a 2001 article from T&D Magazine, is hidden behind a paywall and cannot be examined but even if it does say he got his degree from Brown, it's still just a tertiary source. The fourth, a 2006 article from Conduit, lists someone named "Clark Wezniak Aldrich". If Clark Bennett Aldrich is to be believed, the person listed is either someone else entirely (negating its value as support), or another egregious error on the part of Brown. Neither claim is as credible as the much simpler and more likely one: that Aldrich changed his name. Occam's Shaver (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing a dubious education claim, not a name change? He may well have changed it - do you have a source which mentions this? You seem way too involved in this so I'm not even going to try to follow most of the above; if you have some information about the person in question, and you have a source which meets our guidelines to support it, then feel free to make the change. (Note: This means an article literally discussing the name-change, not some in depth original research and synthesis). I've yet to see anything close to this from yourself, however. Oh, and thanks for removing the excelsior.edu ref; also you can get HighBeam access here: WP:HighBeam. Nikthestunned 09:57, 24 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)