Talk:Monica de Bruyn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Responding to the anonymous user's edit summaries: It's not "essential to mention someone's political insight". In fact, it's a violation of the NPOV policy to assert that someone is "known for her political insight". As for quotations, this particular quotation is uninformative, so I agree with Poccil's deletion of it. I wouldn't object to inclusion of a (suitably brief) quotation from her work that gives the reader an idea of her writing style, political orientation, etc. JamesMLane 07:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I've been watching this page for some time because I'm not convinced of the subject's notability, particularly because the edits from User:62.194.45.62 make the text look like a vanity piece / "PR puff". Ianb 07:39, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that the pre-cleanup text was heavy on the puffery. I've focused on cleanup and haven't tried to determine notability. JamesMLane 07:47, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Question for the anonymous user
To: User:62.194.45.62: Are you Monica de Bruyn or a personal friend of hers? I'd like to know your source for the statements you make about her. We need some basis for satisfying ourselves that these statements are true. JamesMLane 19:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't know her in person, have never met her in person. Like many others I am a fan of her work. I truly admire her. So I went to find out who she is because I was curious about the person behind that great writer and political analyst. And so I heard about her forthcoming book and I was like wow, I really need to read this. Like I said, I have never met with her since I have never been to the Hague and to New York City. I am not a groupie or what, I just think she is the best.
[edit] Removal request
I have sent an email to the webmaster of this page. I asked him to remove this page, but none of this happened.
I have never given any permission for this page. I do not want to be a part of Wikipedia; most information on this page is incorrect. I don't know who made this page - I don't even want to know.
I am not going to edit this page; I want it to be removed as soon as possible.
Sincerely, Monica de Bruyn monicadebruyn@newyork.com
- Ms. de Bruyn, are you any sort of analyst at all? If so then you should know that it is hardly necessary (contrary to your assertions) for someone to give permission before others can write about them. If that were the case, no investigative journalism would be possible, because no one would ever grant permission except to "journalists" certain to portray them favorably. Your request to have the page deleted simply because you say so was declined for the good reason that this is not how Wikipedia nor the rest of the world works. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Feldspar, I am in investigative journalism myself. Thank you for letting me know how the world works. I had no idea about that. The art of investigative journalism is knowing how to write lies. Now that proves that I am in investigative journalism, doesn't it?
My 'birth date' - yours? Nice. I was NOT born on January 5, 1977. Throat cancer - yours? Nice. I NEVER had throat cancer. Am I 'any sort of analyst at all'? Ever heard of Google - where will NOT find the information you obviously want for this page by the way.
And now remove this page or else other measures will be taken. No permission for publication was given, nor by my p.a., nor by me. CORRECT information about me - see, CORRECT information - will be published when WE say so. We are not too crazy about people who publish INCORRECT information.
See the difference?
Other incorrect information: I do NOT work as a journalist at the moment. I am NOT of 50% Afro-American descent. The statement is NOT mine.
- I've never edited the article -- well, except to remove your tantrum -- so your sneering accusations about my mistakes are mis-targeted, as are all your comments about what I "obviously want". As is your idea that you will take "other measures" -- going to the police and seeking to have us arrested for freedom of the press, I suppose. It's an empty threat, but if you don't realize that by now I don't suppose you ever will. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Try to acknowledge the difference between a warning and a threat. It's hard. I know. If you really think you're something you should tell it right to my face - in my mailbox unless you feel better sneering at someone in front of the eyes of the world.
[edit] Edits to article
This article was created by an anonymous user. I asked the anon for the source of the statements made about Ms. de Bruyn but received no direct reply. Nevertheless, I was willing to follow our rule of assuming good faith, so I made no substantive changes.
Now another anon, claiming to be Ms. de Bruyn, has asserted that many of the statements are incorrect. Because the challenged statements were unsourced, and I can't verify them online, I'm removing them. If the article survives VfD, I'll see whether there are any printed sources at the New York Public Library that provide further information. JamesMLane 19:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Too bad, James. The NYPL does not have further information about me. Speakers Academy does. And that information is protected by copyright. monicadebruyn@newyork.com or www.newsonpolitics.com - the page that you found through Google earlier today.
- Sorry, anonymous user with bad attitude, but information is not protected by copyright. Copyright covers artistic expression, the way words are arranged, not information. Anyone can publish just about any information they want about you with or without your permission. To add to the problems with what you are proposing here, we have no proof you are who you claim you are. You could just be some enemy of hers trying to get her article delisted and acting rude and ignorant to try to make us hate her. I'm going to assume good faith and go with the idea that the actual person wouldn't be so obnoxious and misinformed about the concept of free speech. DreamGuy 01:33, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cancer?
A person whom I have no reason to doubt is Ms de Bruyn complains, justifiably, about inaccuracies in the article. In particular, she says "I NEVER had throat cancer." However, the Speakers Academy profile to which she refers us states that Monica de Bruyn "survived lung and gullet cancer when she was a child." Is the issue here a distinction between "gullet" and "throat?" Is the Speakers Academy profile incorrect? Or is this a translation issue of some kind?
Would "esophageal cancer" be accurate? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just give the citation and quote it. This is well within fair use. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:50, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Also on the Dutch version
There is also a Dutch version of the article (nl:Monica de Bruyn) there is now the same discussion and interventions of Ms. de Bruyn going on like here. --Walter 21:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] from Vfd
On 2 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monica de Bruyn for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 15:04, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Useless Comment
It must really irk Ms. de Bruyn that this wiki article is now the #1 Google result for her full name. I wonder how much of that ranking is due to links pointing out the silly delete battle. Irony... better than macaroni. Feco 04:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello there, I work closely with this political scientist and author, in fact I work FOR her, and I have changed this page. The birth date was incorrect. You wrote January, 5 1977. Ms. De Bruyn was not born on January 5, 1977, however, we will not reveal the correct date since personal information is never being given to third parties. We are fine with '1977' and not with some incorrect random birth date. Sincerely, Jocelyne Mindell P.S. We have recently contacted user:62.194.45.62. We know who this person is and we have recommended this person to stop publishing information about Ms. De Bruyn with no prior permission. It seems like user 195.195.152.11 likes to 'correct' people's birth dates. We urge user 195.195.152.11 to stop doing this or else measures will be taken. We are ok with this page, though most information is incorrect, however, you can keep this page (Ms. De Bruyn is no translator, does not write for political magazines in the Netherlands etc etc). But oh well, free to write your own truth, however, we do not feel like giving you the correct information since we do not feel like working with Wikipedia at all and we never will. To us, Wikipedia is a useless and above all cheap source - we have told you that before - and Wikipedia has the right to write whatever it wants. We - and no one else since everybody except Wikipedia asks us for permission to publish information about Ms. De Bruyn - have the correct information about Ms. De Bruyn and if this page is what you want to believe - go ahead and have a nice time - that's all we can tell you. I wish you good luck. If Wikipedia wants to make itself less credible than it already is, it's done a great job with this article. Maybe 10% out of 100% of the article is correct, but that is pretty much it.
This same comment and discussion is ongoing on nl: it is funny that they changed tactics. Waerth 22:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, we've got her birth date narrowed down to 364 days now. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ms. Mindell might want to take her complaints to Ms. de Bruyn, since the information that the latter is a translator is from her own website. I don't know where the January 5 date came from, but I've restored 1977, which is in the Speakers Academy profile. JamesMLane 22:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The measures ms J.Mindell speaks basically involves receiving threatening emails as regards to legal actions they will undertake to which you cannot answe, because they block anyway for you to send an email back. Waerth 02:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hoax
This article is a hoax see Netherlands version, there is also a statement from Monica de Bruyn on her personale website. and she is publishing that on the other website too. Anyway monicadebruyn@newyork.com is not her adress, she is at AOL. the reactions from monicadebruyn@newyork.com are not from her, she thinks it is not her time worth to react to you. This article is a joke.
And oh yes I remember, you should ask the Dutch wikipedia for more information there was an other user and he comitted vandalism on the Dutch wikipedia and wrote this article so whatever.
- The Speakers Academy profile is corroboration of the basics of this article. Do you mean that there is no such person as Monica de Bruyn, and somebody perpetrated a hoax on the Speakers Academy? If you mean only that there are specific inaccuracies in the article, that doesn't rise to the level of "hoax". We can just correct any inaccuracies. JamesMLane 15:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a real person named Monica de Bruyn, but for sure she is not the 'political analyst' nor 'journalist' or whatever she wants the rest of the world to believe. The first and only final source of all information on her seems to be her CV on speakersacademy.nl. However, all the info on that CV turns out to be both unverifiable and mostly self-promotion. Her publications in English are only on useless-knowledge.com (and not of a really high standard if I may say so), her publications in Dutch (only two) are neither of high standard nor endorsed by any organization, her own websites are empty shells. She is not a journalist with any affiliation in the Netherlands and her first book (or at least the ISBN number that is was included in her page on the Dutch Wikipedia) has not been given out. There is no information whatsoever on her second book (supposedly titled 'Mission Accomplished').
It seems that someway she has bluffed her way into the Dutch Speakers Academy and used that as a starting point for further self promotion. According to a post on a Dutch Blog [3] on the 13th of May she does not live in the Hague nor New York but in a small town named Purmerend just north of Amsterdam.
Whether one should label the article as a hoax is a matter of definition. Nevertheless the only thing that seems not to be inaccurate (although not verified either) is the existence of a person named Monica de Bruyn. All other 'facts' are either proven to be false or cannot be verified in any way. (I have posted approximately the same comment on the Dutch discussion page)
AlexP 22:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- If she indeed bluffed her way into the Speakers Academy, then the ideal from our point of view would be for the Speakers Academy to investigate, after which we could act based on the Academy's findings. After all, she's a larger percentage of their entries than of ours. :) Any chance that will happen? JamesMLane 22:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I will contact them and point them to the discussion going on here. Then we'll find out AlexP 07:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Alex P.
Alex P.
Last summer you sent an anonymous email to Speakers Academy and to some other clients of Monica de Bruyn (FYI: this is NO longer her name!!!). To Speakers Academy, you wrote the following:
Geachte heer, mevrouw, Graag maak ik u opmerkzaam op het volgende. In uw bestand van sprekers staat een persoon genaamd Monica de Bruyn. Zij zou een specialist zijn op het gebied van buitenlandse politiek en defensiebeleid en wordt op uw site gepresenteerd met een uitgebreid CV. Ondertussen is op wikipedia.org (zowel Nederlandstalige als Engelstalige versie) een discussie ontstaan over deze (verder volstrekt onbekende) dame. De discussie kort weergegeven: er wordt getwijfeld aan de waarheid van de zaken die op het CV vermeld staan. Een aantal als feit gepresenteerde zaken blijkt onjuist te zijn, een aantal is niet te verifieren en als het op de enkele \'journalistieke\' publicaties van Monica de Bruyn aankomt, blijken deze van een zeer licht niveau te zijn. Speakers Academy blijkt uiteindelijk de enige bron te zijn van al deze zaken. Speakers Academy heeft een goede naam en wordt bij wikipedia pagina\'s vaker als bron gebruikt waar het personen aangaat. Echter in dit geval wordt sterk getwijfeld of Speakers Academy de achtergrond van deze spreker zelfstandig heeft onderzocht of slechts het aangeboden CV klakkeloos heeft overgenomen. Misschien kunt u enige duidelijkheid verschaffen. Dat hoeft uiteraard niet naar mij, maar het feit of u het CV van deze spreker (in de huidge vorm) op uw site continueert, zal een voldoende aanwijzing zijn, zowel ten aanzien van deze spreker als ten aanzien van de kwaliteit van Speakers Academy. Met een vriendelijke groet, Alexander Popov
You never received any reply from Speakers Academy, on the contrary, they asked Monica de Bruyn to write a column about the European Union and she did. Speakers Academy clearly thought this was an excellent article. They published it. Since that day, you stopped your stalking behavior towards Monica de Bruyn.
Alex P, everybody knows you have a problem. But someone, let's call him or her anonymous, once said:
"I'd rather be hated for what I am than be loved for what I am not."
Alex P, we know you're not a security analyst. We know you have been trying to harm Monica de Bruyn because you're jealous. We know and there's more we know you've done when it comes to Monica de Bruyn.
But it didn't work. Sorry. Better luck next time.
By the way, she has a new domain name. So you can search and search, whatever you want. You won't find her. And like I said, Monica de Bruyn is NO LONGER HER NAME. There is NO MONICA DE BRUYN. This name NO LONGER EXISTS. She uses her husband's name, so your little game's over.
You're a stalker.
P.S. Alex P, Monica and her husband live in New Jersey, neither in Amsterdam nor in The Hague. I know you want to harm her in every way you can, but you turn out to be a very bad researcher. She has lived in NJ for quite a while now. You should have known. Frustrated little shit...
[edit] Correct, GidonB
Correct, GidonB.
Left Speakers Academy after she married and permanently moved to a village in New York State.
Her name is not Monica de Bruyn. She got married and now publishes her books under her husband's name.
You may want to copy that information in the article.
