Talk:Matthew VanDyke

BLP edit

I've edited this article substantially to conform with WP:BLP and related guidelines:

1. Removed large swaths of unsupported text, including a huge section on "Solo Motorcycle Adventures in North Africa and the Middle East" apparently entirely supported by this, in which it gains a mention.
2. Removed the rest of the motorcycle adventure; these sections, even with sourcing, are implausibly disproportional to the subject's only claim to notability
3. Removed unsupported text citing to inapposite text (e.g. "Pi Sigma Alpha, Phi Kappa Phi, Omicron Delta Kappa, Phi Beta Kappa, and Golden Key International honor societies, and was awarded the Outstanding Scholar-Leader Award of the Political Science Department for 2002." apparently referencing this, in which the claims do not appear)
4. Removed that the subject was very clear with the media that he was not working as a journalist when captured, and should not be labeled as a journalist in their articles and reports. He simply stated that he was in Libya for “personal reasons” and to "do whatever I could to help the revolution," without giving specifics; offering this as a reference. Nothing of the sort appears within, aside from the direct quote.
5. Mentioning the military award: the source in question makes clear that it was uncertain as to its provenance. I've added language to indicate as much.
6. General WP:PEACOCK problems, uncited assertions of praise and positive reception.

Of course, the things I mention above may be replaced if actual supporting cites are found, but their presence in the meantime violated several parts of WP:BLP and/or failed WP:V. JFHJr (㊟) 00:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible Bias

VanDyke’s girlfriend of five years is named in one of the sources as one Lauren Fisher, and the original article, including the problematic statements, was written by Lrmf (note initials) who’s only ever posted VanDyke-related material to Wikipedia as far as I can see. This may just be coincidence of course. —Giantflightlessbirds, 7 Feb 2012

I recently edited the comments on VanDyke in the interest of WP:Balance. In checking the history I note that one of these sources has previously been deleted by Lrmf who asserted they violated NPOV. This seems to reflect a pattern of only presenting positive views of VanDyke. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protect for BLP

Perennial troll visits, have put on indefinite semiprotect for BLP - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This has been changed to "pending changes". I would strongly suggest this article not be taken off PC - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Van Dycke & SEA leaks

The issue about Van Dycke & the SEA leaks about him must be added to the article, thats why I add the unbalanced tag. We cannot add only the laudatory info (even distorting that info to make it look at it says something the source doesnt, as it happened here) while ignoring the polemic ones.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I tried.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Blogs aren't suitable references for an even slightly controversial point in a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Updated article

The article had not been updated in a long time, and the lack of sources for parts of the article needed to be addressed. I have made several additions and improvements to the article to update it and bring it up to Wikipedia (and journalistic) standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instruisto (talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Van Dyke

[Former discussion regarding media observation of narcissism]

A previous section noting observations of narcissism was deleted - I have re-inserted a fully referenced section - this is not an "attack"; it is a valid counter-point to the article.Slugfilm (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Listing others' attacks is still an attack, particularly claims of a psychiatric diagnosis (narcissism) supported only by opinion pieces - as such, I've removed it again - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Although I haven't been following Van Dyke's recent career sufficiently to do detailed editing, I would note that according to WP Policy on Biographies of living persons, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". Slugfilm's edit appears to meet that criterion of reliably sourced criticism. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The deleted section did not assert that Van Dyke *is* a narcissist (as a diagnosis), it stated that third parties have *described* him as such (as a character trait). It is not an attack to state that multiple independent and reputable news sources have published opinions describing Van Dyke as a narcissist. Is David Gerard suggesting critical third party commentary is never permissible in WP articles? At present, this article is entirely uncritical of Van Dyke, likens him to Che Guevara and portrays him as an American hero. Given Van Dyke's self-stated desire to become famous (he states this repeatedly in his films), narcissism is an obvious and valid observation to mention. Frankly, this is the first Wikipedia debate I have become involved in and I don't care strongly enough to fight further, but I think Mr Gerard is being rather heavy-handed. If David Gerard remains un-persuaded, perhaps someone could kindly advise me how to appeal this point? - Slugfilm (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have re-instated the deleted text noting that, in line with WP Policy on Biographies of living persons, the criticism is presented "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". - Slugfilm (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have also (i) re-instated the reference to the dispute surrounding the CPJ's criticism, and (ii) deleted the reference to Che Guevara. The CPJ issue is noteworthy because of the gravity of the allegations and the reputable and independent nature of the source (which has not retracted its claims) and its citation in a national newspaper. As to objections to blog material, I refer objectors to WP Policy on Use of blogs in BLP. The references to Che Guevara were simply unsupported by any source. Before David Gerard or any other Users delete these changes again, I urge them to discuss their objections openly on this talk page. - Slugfilm (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed again. You cannot farm out unfounded psychiatric diagnoses. Are any of the people you quote labelling him as suffering narcissism or egomania professionally qualified to state that? No, they are not. Being in a national newspaper does not make an amateur opinion less amateur. You can't do this in BLPs. Referring to WP:BLPN for outside opinions - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There appear to be three main points of disagreement regarding this article:

1. Reference to Che Guevara

Proposed deletion of the following sentence: "VanDyke has been compared to revolutionary Che Guevara in the media," - Slugfilm (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I propose this is deleted because the references do not support the statement. I can find no reliable working source likening VanDyke to Che Guevara except for his beard, which I do not consider encyclopaedic. See WP BLP policy: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable".

The reference and comparison to Che Guevara has been made in numerous articles, which are cited. Instruisto (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The reference to Che Guevara in the article is supported by 3 sources, none of which is valid:

Source 12 (The City Paper) is a dead link.

Source 35 (Baltimore Sun) contains one trivial mention of Che Guevara: "[VanDyke has] a burgeoning Che Guevara-like beard".

Source 36 (Urban Times) contains one hearsay mention of Che Guevara: "The comparison with Ernest Hemingway and Che Guevara please me."

In the absence of any more substantive sources, it is unfounded for the article to state "VanDyke has been compared to revolutionary Che Guevara in the media." - Slugfilm (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

2. Criticism from Committee to Protect Journalists

Proposed inclusion of the following statement: "The Committee to Protect Journalists subsequently criticized VanDyke for allegedly "pretending to be a journalist in a war zone" and thus endangering the lives of genuine reporters covering conflict. VanDyke denies this allegation." - Slugfilm (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The CPJ is a reputable NGO which has strongly criticised VanDyke. VanDyke denies this criticism. This dispute has been referenced independently by The Guardian. I propose reference to this dispute is included in the article. See WP BLP policy: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

The Committee to Protect Journalists has not criticized VanDyke. The director, Joel Simon, did so in a personal blog on the organization's website, and to date zero evidence has been produced to substantiate the claims made in that blog. Posting unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations is a violation of WP:BLPN Instruisto (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The blog in question is not a "personal blog" - it is the CPJ's official blog which is located on the CPJ website under News & Analysis > CPJ Blog. WP BLP policy states: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I believe the CPJ blog meets these criteria. - Slugfilm (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That the allegations were reported in The Guardian (which includes direct quotes from the blog) supports the mention of the dispute in this article. WP BLP policy states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." - Slugfilm (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

One publication repeating the existence of unproven allegations doesn't make them relevant, newsworthy, or true. Out of the hundreds of articles and reports about Matthew VanDyke you have found one article that mentions this blog post. But even if there were several repeating such unfounded allegations it wouldn't merit their inclusion in this case. Furthermore, the blog is the personal blog of Joel Simon hosted on the CPJ website. It contains his personal opinions, not the views of the organization. In this case Simon had a clear personal motive for making these accusations against VanDyke, which in addition to a complete lack of evidence to substantiate them casts serious doubt on their validity. Neither the accusations nor the inclusion of them in this Wikipedia entry come anywhere close to meeting journalistic standards. Instruisto (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors must comply with WP Policy, not "journalistic standards". This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. We disagree whether the blog in question is personal or professional. I invite third party editors to give their opinion on this. Regardless, I am not seeking to state that the allegations are true - I am merely seeking to cite the existence of a noteworthy dispute which has been publicised in a respected broadsheet newspaper. - Slugfilm (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note, ATTRIBUTEPOV means Joel himself should be named, not CPJ. Usually better for people notable enough for wikipedia articles to be written about themselves to be included with wiki links. You can include it, the CPJ accusation is more relevant/significant than other claims below and above. The Guardian ref can be supplemented by (Hoya, UPI, Dangerous) - this appears to be DUE if he's responded to it. (UMN unrelated) -- Aronzak (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Joel Simon retracted the allegations he had made in his blog. The statement about Joel Simon's blog has been deleted from Wikipedia as the blog article has been removed by CPJ and is no longer relevant. Xavitric (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this Xavitric. I have reviewed the revised blog article and agree it retracts the previous allegations. I have no objection to the removal of the related CPJ commentary in the main article. Slugfilm (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

3. Media claim of egocentricity and questionable motives

Proposed inclusion of the following statement: Media commentators have described VanDyke's portrayal in Point and Shoot as egocentric and questioned whether his experiences in the Middle East were driven by desire for fame and adrenaline, rather than geopolitical conviction. - Slugfilm (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Numerous media sources have questioned VanDyke's motives in the Middle East, noting his portrayal in his films as narcissistic and egocentric. I agree with David Gerard that the article should not state that VanDyke has been diagnosed with the psychiatric conditions of narcissism or egomania. However, I propose that the article should mention the fact that multiple media commentators have described VanDyke as possessing these character traits. The words narcissistic and egocentric are commonly used in English language as adjectives describing character traits and behaviours. See WP BLP policy: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

That's appropriate when framed as reviews of his movie and his shooting and editing style - in point and shoot he expressed criticism of militias where their men sling ammo belts around their shoulders to imitate old movies and fire from the hip - but he completely failed to express any self-criticism or discuss why foreign fighters end up in wars where they don't understand the political context. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User Slugfilm claims (which is very revealing as to his bias in editing the Matthew VanDyke entry) "Given Van Dyke's self-stated desire to become famous (he states this repeatedly in his films)," yet having just watched both of VanDyke's films to confirm whether this statement is true, I have discovered that there are no instances of VanDyke ever saying this or expressing a desire to become famous. That he does not even appear in one of his films (Not Anymore: A Story of Revolution) is further evidence of this, as is his apparently complete withdrawal from public from December, 2014 to February, 2015, during which time Point and Shoot (the film he does appear in) was being broadcast on television. These are not the behaviors of someone seeking to be famous. Quite the contrary, in fact. Instruisto (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Numerous media sources have questioned VanDyke's motives in the Middle East as portrayed in Point and Shoot: see, for example The Guardian article observes: "VanDyke claims to be a journalist-turned-freedom-fighter-turned documentarian, but others accuse him of being a misguided thrillseeker who repeatedly puts himself at risk. He insisted that he understood the dangers of being in Syria but said the viral potential of the documentary made it worth the risk. VanDyke has an acute interest in using social media to promote his project". The existence of these external observations should be included in the article. - Slugfilm (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As many (or more) media sources appear to have praised VanDyke and his motives. Wikipedia presents facts about a subject and isn't a forum to voice various third parties' opinions of subjects. Instruisto (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not WP Policy.　On the contrary, WP BLP policy states: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. By their nature, criticism and praise will always be opinions. - Slugfilm (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

General compliance with WP Policy

I would like to remind editors that deletion of edits en masse (rather than considering each point above on its own merits) is not in line with WP policy on resolving content disputes. - Slugfilm (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

All of these points were considered and refuted by other editors. Your bias has been clearly established and you should refrain from further editing or sabotaging this Wikipedia subject. Instruisto (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)— Instruisto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You have not "clearly established" bias - you disputed one of my comments on this Talk Page. My edits are balanced, fully referenced, supported by other editors and made in good faith. It is disingenuous to describe such editing as "sabotage". In line with WP Policy, I have pursued every reasonable avenue to discuss these issues dispassionately, including on this Talk Page, the BLPN (see here and here) as well as your own User:Talk Page (which you ignored). Please refrain from making such inflammatory and groundless accusations in the future. - Slugfilm (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is pretty clearly against you on these changes - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not correct. The position of Users who have expressed support for or objection to the 3 issues (at least in principle, subject to review of final wording) can be summarised as follows:

Issue	For	Against	Consensus?
1. Removal of reference to Che Guevara	Slugfilm, SteveMcCluskey, Aronzak	Instruisto, David Gerard	Consensus for deletion
2. Inclusion of criticism from Director of CPJ	Slugfilm, SteveMcCluskey, Aronzak, JFHJr, Amadscientist	Instruisto, David Gerard	Consensus for inclusion
3. Inclusion of critical media reviews	Slugfilm, SteveMcCluskey, Aronzak, Aircorn	Instruisto, David Gerard	Consensus for inclusion

This summary is based on a review of discussions on this Talk Page and the BLPN discussions (Archive 165, 22-28 Nov 2012, Archive 167, 25 Dec 2012, Archive 220, 19-27 March 2015). For good measure, I have contacted each of the Users cited above to ask them to confirm if this summary correctly reflects their positions. - Slugfilm (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment "media criticism of egocentricity" should not be in a WP:CSECTION, but reviews of his films, both positive and negative, should accompany discussion of the films. Comments should be attributed to their sources (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) with some indicator of which voices are in the majority or the minority (WP:DUE/WP:BALANCE) - I included the 72% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes in my edits to Point and Shoot (film) § Reception - this helps to balance positive and negative reviews, and the rating system is not subjective. A sentence on counterbalancing positive reviews could be a useful addition that gives more balance. "Media commentators have described" may be weasel words, and combining too many disparate refs into a vague generalisation may constitute Original Research or fall afoul of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Aronzak - following your previous comments on BLPN I am not proposing inclusion of a WP:CSECTION - I am instead seeking to include the critical review commentary under the relevant film section (Point & Shoot). I agree with your comments about weasel words and risk of paraphrasing - I propose mirroring Point and Shoot (film) § Reception - Slugfilm (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with how the article is at the moment. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming Aronzak. - Slugfilm (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Slugfilm's table accurately reflects my views. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

References

VanDyke and Michael Enright (actor)

Pinging previously active on talk @Slugfilm: @SteveMcCluskey: @David Gerard: @Instruisto:, @JFHJr:, @Amadscientist:

I would argue that Michael Enright (actor) being a high value target for the YPG is substantially similar to the high media profile for Matthew VanDyke in his role with the NPU. I'd argue the substantial link is that two white celebrities are involved in a propaganda (non-fighting) role with two non-ISIL (and ISIL opposed) groups. I think there's a substantial link and I'd like a third opinion. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aronzak: The connections you are trying to draw between Enright and Van Dyke are tenuous—specifically they are mediated by a third category that they shared similar roles, although with different groups. By that argument, the article for Harry S. Truman should have a see also to the article for Dwight D. Eisenhower, since they were both Presidents of the United States in part of the year 1953 and Boris Karloff and Randy Quaid should have see also's to each other since they both played Frankenstein's monster in films. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey: OK I've changed the wikilink to People's Protection Units#Foreign volunteers to make it less specific - and that is wikilinked in the seealso on the other page - I think the seealso is appropriate for both. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aronzak:I think this is a sensible compromise - I have no objection to adding the People's Protection Units#Foreign volunteers wikilink as a seealso. Slugfilm (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fine with me. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

All good. Sorry for pinging so many users. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Matthew VanDyke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130827201032/http://citypaper.com/news/issue-28-the-accidental-warrior-1.1517840 to http://citypaper.com/news/issue-28-the-accidental-warrior-1.1517840

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matthew VanDyke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140515061502/http://www.oneworldmedia.org.uk/short-film-award-2014 to http://www.oneworldmedia.org.uk/short-film-award-2014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225131108/http://www.abc2news.com/news/world/baltimore-native-matthew-vandyke-recruiting-army-to-fight-isis to http://www.abc2news.com/news/world/baltimore-native-matthew-vandyke-recruiting-army-to-fight-isis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)