Brion Carroll

December 2023

Hi Brion Carroll! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at James Naismith that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Editor10293813 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for that misqualification of the changes. I thought that the edits were fairly minor in comparison to the full length of the James Naismith profile. I will remedy this in any future posts or edits. Brion Carroll (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

James Naismith

Despite criticisms of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is all about what is verifiable. On his article, you removed verifiable information that was well sourced with reliable sources and replaced it with unsourced information that is directly contradictory of the sourced information. I'm not here to discuss the topic of the invention of basketball, just to inform you that your edit violated multiple Wikipedia policies.

Long story short, don't remove sourced content (and the source) to replace it with unsourced claims, especially when said claims are directly contradictory of a well documented and accepted fact.--Rockchalk717 05:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It has been historically proven (and validated by the NYS Assembly's June 2022 proclamation and the 2022 book Nais-Myth: Basketball's Stolen Legacy) that Lambert Will is the actual inventor of the game of Basketball. The threading of that fact did little to change the basic profile of Naismith in history. Just because there was an absence of the truth back in the 1890s doesn't mean that the revealing of that misidentification of Naismith as the supposed inventor of Basketball should never come to light. If so, then we should still maintain that the Earth is flat, and that greenhouse gases do little to affect the Earth' climate. I will be authoring a new page on Lambert Will and his place in history. I hope that you will not take the same position in that review - else you should shut down Wikipedia as a "site of history" and not a "site of facts" as best we know at the time. Brion Carroll (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not here to debate the invention of basketball and I have no intention to do so. I'm here to advise you ok Wikipedia policy and you haven't proven anything from reliable sources. Even your most recent edits pushed a contradictory point to a well established well documented and well sourced fact in the page. There's only a single "source" making that claim, any websites just point to that book. By letting that book contradict what is already in his article, you are violating WP:DUE. So here's an official first warning, stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content to articles. I will not be retuning here unless it's for further warnings because there's nothing to discuss and you clearly seem to want to discuss the topic itself which I have zero interest in doing, not to mention that's not allowed on here per WP:NOTFORUM.--Rockchalk717 16:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually I'm going to straight to WP:ANI for a WP:SELFPROMOTE violation since you are listed as an author of the book you are using as your source.--Rockchalk717 16:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

RockChalk717 - do you have an email that I can send images of newspapers from back in the 1890's to reference the playing of Basketball and its inventors name - which is 100 times more evidence than proves that James Naismith invented the game. There is virtually NO evidence in any material form that proves that Naismith invented Basketball.

The first know 13 rules of Basket Ball where supposedly produced in Feb-1892 AFTER the rules were factually printed in The Triangle newsletter in Jan-1892.

The supposed rules dated Feb-1892 (which - by the way is the month and year of the 1st public Basketball game ever played in Springfield, MA) were later altered by someone to have Dec 1891 and supposed signed by James Naismith to "prove that he created them" in June of 1931. This enhanced the "sales value" of the "never tested for age of paper or ink" 2 pager that was actioned off by Sotherby's for over $4M to the benefit of Ian Naismith and never used to fund the Foundation that he professed it would be used for.

Point is: NO other "evidence" exists that James Naismith invented Basketball. As a matter of FACT, Dr Luther Gulick had to write an article in 1893 defined "what constitutes an invention". The synopsis of this description is that it is the person that turns the principles of something into a product. We DON'T have specific evidence that Lambert Will sent James Naismith the rules in Dec of 1891 (upon soliciation by Springfield to provide suggestions on indoor games).

It is not factually proven that James Naismith (upon review of the new game rules received) tried them out with some students in Dec/1891 in Springfield and upon seeing the new game as being a potential success put together the Jan/1892 article in The Triangle. His signature at the bottom (as Editor) granted him the supposed position as the inventor, and it was that article (based on the rules of a game being played in Central NY for roughly 1 year - which is evidenced by the fact that Albany was to play Herkimer for the NY State Championship in Feb of 1891) that caused the YMCA "world" to believe that James Naismith was the inventor.

James Naismith rode that sunami of fame and praise - but Gulick needed to reinforce it in the previoiusly mentioned 1893 article so James (who must have felt the unwarranted notoriety a bit disturbing since he hadn't actually invented that game) would feel comfortable with this new position - because Gulick needed "the win" as founding superintendent of the physical education department of the International YMCA Training School, having recently adopted Football at Springfield.

So please don't tell me or suggest that I don't have evidence to prove my position. Send me your email address and I will provide you all the evidence necessary to make the factual claims that I have made that justify the modifications made to the page of James Naismith. Brion Carroll (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Just stop. Number 1, I'm not reading that. Number 2, I told you I'm not here to debate the topic. 3, I'm not giving out my email address. As you can see you have been blocked from editing his page for pushing this idea he didn't invent basketball. There's nothing to discuss. Have a fantastic day and good luck with the book.--Rockchalk717 19:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing James Naismith. This is because you are attempting to promote your self-published book that pushes a fringe point of view about Naismith. I have been unable to find any independent reviews of your book by recognized experts in basketball history. Accordingly, that book is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. You can make neutrally written edit requests at Talk:James Naismith, but these must be well-referenced edit requests, citing reliable sources, not your own book. Read about editing with a conflict of interest and follow that behavioral guideline carefully. Please also read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 - The book I reference has much of the evidence that was culled through by the Washington Post (for 6 weeks) prior to their posting of the "Welcome to the (other) birthplace of Basketball". It was also analyzed and review by the NYS Assembly before they voted and unanimously approved the K1052 rcognizing Herkimer, New York, as the birthplace of Basketball, Lambert Will as the game's inventor, and the Mohawk Valley as the game's principal influence in the game's initial adoption.

I would consider this as unbiased and reliable enough sources to have verified the facts before signing their "names". We will continue to push this message (and the facts) out to others in the Basketball arena, but realize that having misinformation in Wikipedia is what now reinforces the old (flat earth) profile and it is my hopes that there can be subtle (maybe not heaving hitting as I did the first time) reworks to steer readers in the right direction. James Naismith was in the right place at the right time to get credit for something he didn't do, but was willing to ride the wave of notoriety.

Gulick even knew Naismith was having problems with this when he wrote the article in March of 1893 when he wrote an article that helped defined "what constitutes and invention". In this article he suggested that it wasn't the person who came up with the details of a game, but rather the one who could apply "principles that had been formulated" that served to "invent a game that was suitable for the peculiar conditions obtaining in the Young Mens Christian Association: that he had worked along the lines formulated during the discussion and [most importantly] that the game became a product.

This allowed Naismith to have comfort that he took what Lambert Will (and the refined game developed in Central New York) rules and "turned them into a product that was acceptable to the principles of the YMCA". Naismith had been responsible for applying the 3 principles (mind, body, spirit) of the YMCA to a set of street rules that worked and was well adopted in Central New York. Therefore, as far as he (and Gulick) were conserned, he had invented "the product".

I am very much open to a detailed discussion and offer the book as the starting point of this discussion, hoping that you (as with Ben Strauss of the Washington Post and the NYS Assembly) will come to realize the truth that Lambert Will was the game's inventor (when tossing cabbage into baskets being sorted for his mother to make sauerkraut), that Herkimer was the game's birthplace, and that the Mohawk Valley was a key influence in the game's initial adoption.

Take care.

Brion Brion Carroll (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Please find a sentence in the Washington Post article that shows that they have "realize[d] the truth that Lambert Will was the game's inventor", please explain how the New York State Assembly is an unbiased source in trying to encourage tourism to a town, and please explain how your sentence

We will continue to push this message (and the facts) out to others in the Basketball arena, but realize that having misinformation in Wikipedia is what now reinforces the old (flat earth) profile and it is my hopes that there can be subtle (maybe not heaving hitting as I did the first time) reworks to steer readers in the right direction.

is not the definition of WP:RGW. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand your note but don't agr\ee that the reputation of the NYS Assembly is open for bid that they would review/evaluate/assess/debate on naming Herkimer as the birthplace, Lambert Will as the game's inventor, etc and vote to approve the resolution knowing that they were refuting 140 years of historic "buttering of the bread".

I also know that the book published (Nais-MYTH: Basketball's Stolen Legacy) was reviewed by the Washington Post for 6 weeks before they published the article that noted that Springfield College archivist Jeffrey Monseau said "He acknowledged he was skeptical that the rules hanging in Kansas were the same that Naismith once posted."

I also know that there is literally no other evidence that proves that Naismith actually invented the game of Basketball other than a self-published (actually his son, whose child (Ian) benefited from the sale of the 2 page rules w/smugged dates, etc.) book (Basketball Its Origin and Development), where the rules page published shows the Feb 1892 date - differing from the smugged date on the recently auctioned 2 pager.

In the Naismith (co-authored by his son Jack - pg vii) it states that he literally invented the game (never having held a medicine ball and tossing it into a basket nailed to the wall) in two hours.

Every piece of historic evidence that dozens of books were written about are all based on "a guy saying he invented it". NO proof beyond his word. NO authentic evidence that he worked with "players" to develop and refine the game's rules. NO validation beside the collaboration of his Director (Dr Luther Gulick) who also served to greatly benefit by bring another game into Springfield (later University) after introducing Football (which was credited by Walter Camp who drafted the first set of rules, but rugby players were picking up the ball and running with it long before Camp crafted the rules).

Why is Naismith's word with NO other factual evidence something that should be relied on when the paper of the 13 rules has never been dated (not by Sotherby's), nor has the ink that was used to type it vs the scripted note at the bottom, and definitely not the Dec 1891 that is obviously inked overtop the Feb 1892 at the bottom, nor the signature (which is believed to be a forgery done by Ian Naismith - but we'll leave that for another day). When the Indian Nation representative asked to have the paper / ink date analyzed

Alexander Wolff writes "In 1931 James's youngest son, Jimmy, had a hunch that the original rules might someday be worth something. He asked his dad to authenticate them with his signature. So, in ink at the bottom of the second page, Naismith added his name and the date: "62831." He also erased "Feb. 1892" and penned in "Dec. 1891," to make clear that these two pages constituted the document hung in the gym before the first game."

This clarifies that Naismith didn't know the date in Dec 1891 and accidentally wrote Feb 1892 OR the claims that were beginning to fester about Lambert Will inventing the game in 1891 demaned that the Dec 1891 was more influencial in touting their case than leaving it Feb 1892.

Again - it is only the word of James Naismith (and his son Jack) that give heresay evidence that Naismith produced that 2 pager and that he dated it (Feb 1892) which was after the rules were published in The Triangle.

I could continue for another 3000 words, but you should get the point. There exists NO evidence that Naismith invented the game of Basketball and there is a plethora of evidece (factual articles of the day) that prove the Lambert Will is the game's inventor.

I will continue to seek validation of the evidence - but this will serve little to "unbutter the bread" of history, especially when it is reinforced by Wikipedia that "follows the flow" and serves no purpose of offering an alternative view. Brion Carroll (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

So when you said the Washington Post has come to realize the truth that Lambert Will was the game's inventor, what you actually meant was the Washington Post quoted a guy saying that he was skeptical that two sets of rules were identical, but that in no way "invalidates the rest of Naismith’s story".

That is misrepresentation of sources and clear original research—you lying to push an agenda. That you would do such a thing on a website where neutrality is a core policy leaves me in no doubt that your book, written with a clear agenda in mind, is probably stuffed full of inaccuracies and misrepresentation. I really don't think more needs to be said. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that the Washington Post (as with most national news publications or news broadcasters) will present the information to its readership but not make a conclusionary statement. Therefore WP's writer won't say "He did it" or "Lambert Will is the game's inventor". However, the fact that the Washington Post went through the historic evidence (6 week review w/other interviews, like the Springfiled HoF curator), assessed its potential to be true, and considered the interest of its readership in this new revelation (vs other tales that have NO evidence), and in doing so wrote a 3,000 word article w/pictures and put it on the front page of the Sports section - I would say that this is as close to saying "we believe" as will ever be found.

As an example, WP won't write an article presenting that Holyoke, MA was the inventor because James Naismith is said to have watched a Basketball game there prior to his "inventing" of the game. This is not to say that Naismith didn't see a game played in Holyoke, but the best we can assess is that Holyoke (like Amsterdam and other NYS cities along the west to east train travel from Buffalo to Boston whose YMCAs were playing the game in Fall of 1891) took up the game and Naismith was invited to watch.

It still came from the efforts (invention) of the game by Lambert Will, who thought up the game when he was sorting cabbage for his mother to make sauerkraut by tossing heads of cabbage (good vs bad) into the peach baskets in his mother's cellar. This led to using a medicine ball and baskets nailed to the walls in the YMCA gymnasium, etc...

No one that knows the sport of Basketball can truthfully believe that Naismith though up the game in 2 hours while sitting on his bed in his dorm room (as he accounted in Naismith's book Basketball It's Origin and Development). This story included him thinking up and detailing of rules that include the use of officials, the identification of what is a foul, that 3 fouls made by a team would result in a goal for the other team, the time periods, and how a tie game should proceed (if agreed upon by both captains) until another basket it made to break the tie.

All of this done without ever leaving his dorm room; without even holding a medicine ball and a basket to know that it would fit in the basket. We know it wasn't originally a soccer ball because they bounce - therefore dribbling would have been part of the game from its origin. Medicine balls don't bounce so you have to throw them to each other on the court.

NOT trying to sway you or entice you to buy the latest book detailing all the evidence. Just responding to your question. I don't think that if someone came up to the WP today and tried to use the Naismith story as the basis of an article that the WP would meet with them, ask that person for evidence, and if the person simply gave them to the 2 hour story and the 2 pager with the rules (and the smugged Feb 1892 to become Dec 1891) they would say "we'll call you" and that would be the end of that. No article. No 3,000 word profile on the front page of the Sports section of the Washington Post. Nothing. 67.249.177.136 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Lambert Will - inventor of the game of Basketball

To provide evidence in articles printed in the day of 1890s - I sight two articles:

1) The March 1891 article that gives notice to the game between the Albany and Herkimer YMCA Basketball Teams that were to play what is referred to as the NY State Basketball Championship: https://www.originofbasketball.com/thealbanyeveningjournal4march1891.html

2) This is the February 1898 article that details the 7 (seven) years of Basketball and how the Herkimer Team has won 35 and lost only 2 games (1 to Albany on March/1891). It gives the names of the players (who were still alive at the time and living in the Utica, NY region where the article was published).: https://www.originofbasketball.com/historic-evidence.html

NOTE that both of these article were written as "local news for local people". They didn't know that these articles would be selected 140 years later as factual evidence that Herkimer was the birthplace of Basketball and Lambert Will, the game's inventor.

For the chronology of the history of Basketball, check out the home page that gives date line profiling of Lambert Will, James Naismith, and Frank J Basloe, who authored the book I Grew Up With Basketball (https://www.amazon.com/Grew-Up-Basketball-Barnstorming-Yesterday/dp/0803240236). Note that Basloe birthed the term "Globetrotters" - the name of the Herkimer Basketball Team that played all over NY and as far west as the Mississippi (for a cut of the audience fees). That name evolved to Chicago and has the name used by the Harlem Globetrotters ... interesting.

Merry Christmas ... enjoy Brion Carroll (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Brion Carroll. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Product data management, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Validation of the above post is provided in the 2003 publication (ISBN 0-9700352-2-5) by Resource Publishing, written by Rodger J. Burden CPIM, CIERP where (on pg 4) he states "One of the early goals of these data-sharing systems was to lockout the competition with proprietary protocols. In the mid-1980s a team working on a plan called "Project David" develop software known as Product Data Manager, which was used to facilitate this CAD-data sharing. This was arguably the first PDM software developed and is likely that the term Product Data Management (PDM) was coined from Product Data Manager.

Burden goes on to cite Brion Carroll repeated on pages 17-18 using his verbiage to support the role of PDM in the industry at the time of this writing. Brion Carroll (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)