Talk:Theodore Beale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
VG To-do:

I removed the controversies section added by Tim Long as it is unsourced and in violation of the WP:BLP. According to several Wikipedia admins, WorldNetDaily is not deemed a reliable source. The question is not one of truth, but of significance. Until the information can be sourced from a reliable third-party publication, the material cannot be included. Xday 09:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You are grossly distorting the ruling on WorldNetDaily as a reliable source. The ruling on its validity as a source for information does not apply to information provided ABOUT the publication and it's published columnists. I guess you think it's a big joke to keep making this argument, since you are bitter about the decision to reject WND as a source, but that doesn't mean that a joke is a valid basis for an editorial policy. Also, are you sure that you aren't Theodore Beale? If so, note that you are not supposed to be tinkering with your own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.206.11 (talk • contribs) on 5 September 2007.

I reverted the wholesale edit made by an anonymous author on 4th July, which removed large chunks of info including the Vox Day pseudonym and the recent Holocaust controversy. Most of the information edited out is based on material from the authors own website, and is hardly controversial. Bregence 03:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the information relating to the pseudonymous activity to the Vox Day article, as per the Wikipedia custom. Added information from Billboard magaine. Also removed misplaced subjective adjectives, the article was controversial but the blog is just a blog. Much of that material from the author's website is outdated according to the blog. Added information about Malkin controversy and provided links to the articles.Kaym 10:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you point us to where in Beale's blog it states that the eternalwarriors.com website is outdated? I wasn't aware he had acknowledged this. Similar info is repeated on Amazon.com as well. I reverted the edit re the lawsuit. According to an SEC 10-Q filing for Infogrames, the lawsuit was settled in October 2000 (i.e. after 1999 when Fenris Wolf apparently closed) for a nominal amount after claims from both parties were dismissed by the Supreme Court of New York. The original statement was accurate but perhaps there is still a better way to state this. Bregence 17:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

He makes the case at this blog entry that he wishes the Vox Day pseudonym to remain unconnected to his real identity. I removed the information based on this.--24.21.254.55 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

However, in 1996 on a newsgroup he connected his Vox Day pseudonym to his real identity himself. As such, it seems unwise to restrict access to information after the individual has publicly released it only to regret that decision 11 years later. The article should remain as it was originally written.

Agreed. People are not supposed to edit or exercise editorial decisions on their own articles. Not including a discussion of Vox Day the columnist and blogger on the basis of Beale not wanting anyone to know his pen name years after he connected the two publicly is just silly. Would be delete all information about Bill Clinton as President if he changed his name and declared that he no longer wished to be associated with his other name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.206.11 (talk • contribs) on 28 August 2007.
Dear readers: For what it's worth, regarding the July 2006 discussion above about WorldNetDaily (WND) as a reliable source, WND reported back in June 2003 that Robert Beale, the father of Theodore Beale, was not only a shareholder in WND but was also a member of the board. See [1], an article about Robert Beale's criminal tax problems. I have added some additional information on Robert Beale and his tax problems, but I have limited this mainly to a footnote, as this article is about Theodore, not his father. Considering Robert Beale's current status (in jail awaiting trial) and the fact that Robert Beale's ex-wife reportedly ended up with many Robert Beale's assets, one has to wonder whether Robert Beale is still a shareholder, etc. in WND. Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Marked for Deletion

Why is this article marked for deletion? There are 8 external sources to provide validity to the entry.

[edit] Pic courtesy subject

Vox Day has kindly released a promo photo as GFDL for this entry. Cheers! - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3d blaster...

Anyone who has played "The War in Heaven" (1999, PC) will have a hard time believing that this guy "pioneered" ANYTHING that has anything to do with games, least of all graphics. I can find no other reference to Chris Taylor working with Beale, and nothing about either of them pioneering 3d hardware. There are only 2 sources for this section: One is a non-working link (to newsbytes), and the other refers to a print magazine. If anyone has a copy of the original CGW article, I would love to see it. Even if the CGW article clearly backs up what the author here is claiming, I'm still not convinced that it is authoritative, or even notable. I guess what I'm saying is, even if Beale had some sort of tangential involvement with this technology, it seems extremely unlikely that he was all that instrumental in its development.

So, I'm going to delete this whole section. If anyone thinks it is verifiable and notable, please make your case. Messiahxi (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wmicawber2nd (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable enough for an article at all?

Short Version: This article reads like resume fluff.

Long Version: The more I investigate this article, the worse things get. I have been unable to verify any of the info about Psykosonik, apart from the fact that he was a member from 92-93. The article on Pyskosonik makes no mention of hitting the Dance Top-40, nor the Minnesota Music Award for the Mortal Kombat song. To make matters worse, the track in question (Unlearn) was not released until 1995, about 2 years after Beale's departure from the band. If he is credited on this track, I have been unable to verify it.

I'm going to remove all the Psykosonik info, except for the fact that he was a member from 92-93. However, I pretty sure this article should be deleted. The only info here that is verifiable is the fact that he was in Psykosonik, and the fact that he started Fenris Wolf and published a handful of games. On the music side, I don't think that being an early, brief member of a marginally successful band makes someone notable enough for their own article, especially if they didn't play a significant role in that marginal success. But even then, probably not. On the gaming side, I think its safe to say Fenris Wolf is rather questionable as a notable accomplishment. Their games get almost zero mention in any gaming press, apart from the occasional interview with Beale, talking about either how successful they are, or about how "God told him to make Christian games". His games have nearly fallen off the gaming radar completely, and the few sources that I can even find talking about them, basically ridicule them as abject, total failures, not even worthy of the bargain-bin.

If no one speaks up in the next few days, I'm going to nominate this for deletion. Messiahxi (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I also deleted a part talking about how Fenris Wolf was "Known for their bundling...etc". If they were known for that, it should be easy to verify. Messiahxi (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think you're missing the point as to why he's notable. Even if those other accomplishments are as dubious as you claim (I'm not convinced, by the way), he is a somewhat accomplished writer whose recent book made it up to 65 on Amazon. Also, he is a rather well known columnist on WND, which, despite its questionable credibility, is a pretty popular site (not to mention the time in syndication). So while perhaps the article should focus more on his writing, I couldn't disagree with you more on the question of if it should be deleted completely or not, although I strongly suspect it would fail at any attempt at deletion anyway Kika chuck (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I will give you the point about the lastest book. turns out it is selling. However, it needs to be mentioned in this article in order to contribute to his notability. its not my job to prove "those other accomplishments" as dubious. I'm not the one making these claims. They should be verifiable. Have at it! try to verify any of the things I deleted. perhaps you will have better luck. Personally, I'm not totally sold on deletion either, but I think it should be considered. re-read WP:BIO, and he seems to fall dangerously close to the line. What slot does one need to achieve on Amazon to qualify?
If it doesn't warrant deletion, after all the junk is removed, we are left with a very short article with some very unnotable bullets. #68 on Amazon notwithstanding. Messiahxi (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with deletion. It's a non-article about someone with an over-inflated sense of self-importance. Is publication of a book on Amazon along with some vile opinion on women's rights and Mexican immigration reason enough to get a page on Wikipedia? The only justification for retaining the article might be for the controversy section which serves as worthy public notice of the unpleasant views held by this individual. MonoApe (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with deletion too. Now that all of the unsourced material and sourced material with which an editor disagrees is removed, there's simply nothing notable there. I don't think Wikipedia is in the business of deciding what views are unpleasant and what are not, so there's no reason not to delete it.Xday (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a newbie (don't bite me) with an interest in music. I removed some of the items from the Discography section - a free CD mixed-artist compilation on which Psykosonik had one track, and two releases which came after Beale had left the band. Xday has now reverted those items on the basis that Beale has a songwriting credit on them. Discographies are related to recording artists, not songwriters (otherwise Paul McCartney's discography would include millions of entries while Britney Spears would include none). Can somebody clarify the policy on this - I'm inclined to remove them again but I don't want to break guidelines?Choppyd (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of the songs which show later release dates were recorded earlier when Beale was a member of the band. Both Beale and Larson were members of Psykosonik when "Unlearn" was recorded. The only Psykosonik CD with which they were not involved was "Spiritual Machine". The song "Panik Kontrol" should also be included in this discography, as it is on the "Welcome to My Mind" CD single and was clearly recorded when Beale was a member of the band. "Sunyata" isn't even a Psykosonik song, it's a Basic Pleasure Model song that Beale and Sebastien wrote together.Xday (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Beale's work in Psykosonik and his work as an author and columnist do qualify him for a Wikipedia article. That being said, this article shouldn't turn into a "public notice of the unpleasant views held by this individual." There's more information that can be provided; there's almost nothing about his book The Irrational Atheist, which is probably his most notable accomplishment lately. --75.82.130.33 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversy" section

If I read User:Xday's somewhat gnomic edit summaries correctly his/her problem is with Beale's writings being labelled "controversial", and not with the quotes themselves. The description of "controversial" here seems self-evident to me, but "self-evident" doesn't get stuff into the pages of Wikipedia: it's just another way of saying opinion. In other words, perhaps he/she has a point after all. We either need a source for this description, or a more neutral way to introduce the material, which is not in itself disputed. What we don't need is further deletion of the quotes themselves, which have perfectly adequate sourcing. Suggestions welcome from regular contributors here, otherwise I'll have a try. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)