Talk:Benny Lewis

Brendon or Brendan?

The Library of Congress Name Authority File has a birth name of Brendan with a "variant" of Brendon. Anyone know which is correct? SageGreenRider (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

See this excerpt from a newspaper in Lewis' home town, or Lewis' own LinkedIn page with previous employers refer to him as "Brendan". In Ireland, "Brendan" is is the typical spelling.--100.38.132.77 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

100.38.132.77 edits

100.38.132.77 edits seem to be associated with the subject and only edits this concrete page. Maybe she should refrain from editing. --Llaanngg (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Llaanngg edits

Llaanngg has suggested dramatic changes that are hard to justify. The article warnings are also misleading (the article was linked to on the list of polyglots page, but the orphan warning was added, as just one example).

The quote given (below) is very easily falsifiable, and is mostly just a rant from years ago motivated almost entirely because of Mr. Lewis' criticism of Mr. Kaufman's language learning product. That is clearly quite far from a neutral perspective. There are lots of videos that show that language skills are proven (several citations removed in most recent edit by Llaanngg with no reason provided).

I suggest we both remove our edits (current version), with the line about listing the number of languages spoken being removed, as that reads odd given several languages of a different number are listed just before it.

If you don't like the list of languages provided (which was there for a very long time), then rather than remove it, please see the citations in one of my edits. --100.38.132.77 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

One link from a list is not "being linked from other articles."

Youtube videos are not a reliable source. We need independent sources. That applies to both the first list and to the claim of 10 languages spoken. That also means sources not connected to Benny Lewis.

If the blog The linguist is notable by Kaufman, then his opinion should be considered. It appears he has invested enough time to analyze Lewis' claims.--Llaanngg (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What about the MP3 of the radio conducted by Radio Aragon, or the blog article by the school in China that actually met Mr. Lewis? You just swept across all citations as irrelevant. Explain why these two had to be removed.

I disagree that a Youtube video of a live conversation of Mr. Lewis with a native speaker "is not a reliable source". That isn't a claim from Mr. Lewis, that's a demonstration.

Again, a blog article from someone who has not met the person in question should not be taken more highly than actual sources. This is just a rant from a single person who may be familiar with languages, but has never met or tested this individual. You have also clearly invested time into Mr. Lewis, but I don't think that means we should quote you here. People's opinions should only be included if they are extremely relevant in some way, and the article you linked to looks like nothing more than a rant from someone who has a financial interest in showing himself as a better go-to for language advice. This is not neutral by any means. --100.38.132.77 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Including those sources are OR. If you take a look at Lewis speaking in an interview (youtube video, radio interview) and concludes from there that his <whatever language> abilities are good enough, that's just your analysis. That does not belong here in wikipedia. We need reliable independent sources, not anecdotes.

However, I admit that maybe Kaufman's analysis does not belong in the article either. Or it can only be included if several contrasting analysis are including too. Llaanngg (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We seem to be arguing different things. This article as it was had no claim as to Lewis' level in the languages. It said he "speaks" the language, not that he speaks it fluently or at a particular CEFRL level. I think any reasonable person can agree that conducting an interview is speaking a language, especially if you don't quantify it by saying "he speaks very well" or "he speaks fluently".

But, I am glad you are seeing reason that Mr. Kaufman's analysis really doesn't belong here. If we leave the article is as, then can we agree the conflict is finished? May I suggest that the content of the article remain the same as in its current content and all warnings are removed except for the orphan one? - If we now agree on Mr. Kaufman's blog post quote being removed, and simply not listing languages spoken, then there is no neutrality disputed. - The single source warning is no longer relevant, as everything else linked to in the article is cited correctly from various sources - The warning about "too many sources associated with the subject" is also no longer relevant, since again, the sources are BBC, National Geographic, A San Francisco newspaper, Forbes and an Irish cultural and language website associated with the European Union (all reliable, independent, third-party sources.) - The OR warning also doesn't apply, since everything is backed up, once the list of languages is removed.

In fact, even in its current state, all of those warnings are misleading. They should only remain there if the line about languages spoken remains there. Of all of the above, only the orphan warning applies to the current version. I am fine with the current version, and if you are too, then there is no neutrality dispute. Shall we agree and wrap up the discussion?

--100.38.132.77 (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this seems OK to me. Llaanngg (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this bit is NPOV, and belong in the article

He claims to speak over 10 languages. According to The Linguist "[Benny Lewis] provides no proof of this from his own experience, however. With his various claims we are left with having to take him at his word. He is enthusiastic in promoting his language learning activities, makes great claims for the effectiveness of his approach, and yet can be quite prickly and defensive towards anyone who challenges him." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaanngg (talk

 • contribs) 22:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 

References

Suggestions from Benny himself

This is Benny Lewis here. I know I can't edit the article, but the support page suggested writing in the talk area here. This page has been long in need of some changes, mostly just for lack of info or having nothing new in years, or picking strange specific things to highlight like the sentence about American entrepreneurs and range of Englishes in Ireland (which I happened to mention in one or maybe two interviews, and is an odd choice to mention when giving such little information about me when so many other things would be more informative).

But as well as these less serious issues, various bursts of activity (usually from the same very specific online community) specifically try to portray me in a bad light, this round of which I'd request someone work through as I suggest below.

There's also a note about the page being written like an advertisement, which has been there for a long time and thoroughly confuses me when the page had barely any information until recently and certainly nothing promotional. Whoever added that was more likely doing it because it fit the narrative they had in mind, to portray me as nothing more than an Internet marketer, upon seeing anything that didn't make me look bad. The description was just a dry list of a few facts, so many things could be said about it, but definitely not that it is written like an advertisement.

Hopefully, I can help push this article in a more informative direction, while the community keeps it genuinely balanced. Any separate topics I add, I'll put "by Benny" in brackets, unless advised otehrwise.

Misleading Chinese/Japanese project info added (by Benny)

The very recently added (and fortunately, subsequently improved - before the most recent changes, this part represented the bulk of the page's content) segment about Japanese and Chinese has multiple issues: 1. "Lewis claims that anyone can learn a language to fluency within a three month period of focused study" (originally added to the Japanese/Chinese section, which made it both inaccurate and out of place even if it had been accurate). The link to corroborate this is a Business Insider article that I not only didn't write, but whose author doesn't even make this claim based on any evidence other than guessing. The citation doesn't support the addition, so I'd suggest it be removed.

For clarity, I've never said this, and I disagree with it strongly. It's based on extrapolation from the title of my blog or my first book, which I always very clearly state to anyone who reads on even briefly, represent my philosophy of specific targets in specific timelines, and the theme of a small number of the challenges I gave myself in some language learning projects. But I've never ever claimed what the sentence implies and anytime someone suggests this to me, I *always* correct them. I'd be happy to help someone insert a more balanced phrase that can be cited if the connection to the brand name would help this article.

2. "Lewis' attempts at learning Japanese and Chinese to fluency in a short period of time have been criticized as unsuccessful." This is true, but they have also been praised as encouraging a ton of people. The sources for both the positive and the negative comments are forum threads, emails, YouTube videos of individuals, and never really any source that I think would fit citation standards on Wikipedia, but if they did (such as Steve Kaufmann's video), then we'd have to give the other side too.

In both projects, I aimed very high and in both, I didn't reach my initial goal, but I did reach some spoken level in the language with plenty of video demonstrations. Simply labelling them as unsuccessful is misleading, and is based more on the faulty concept of a guarantee that was never given.

3. If citing less successful projects, then cherry-picking only those projects and not mentioning others paints a very specific picture that the editor clearly was going for. A balanced article would give just as much space to the successful ones, and there is a much larger number of these. Whenever you are ambitious, you will always have failures if you have enough projects. This is a fact of life. But if you only present those moments when describing someone, then you are clearly forcing a particular narrative.

4. The original text (since edited; not by me) had consistent repetition of what I "claimed", none of which were true. This is worth mentioning, because I saw from an edit years ago that making these "failures" and "claims" central to my story is a theme of the small number of people I know are responsible for the edits, so I want to make sure only factual versions are added if at all, in future.

For more context, with the Japanese project, in the intro video I went out of my way to specifically say that I was just aiming for the goal mentioned, and that failure was most certainly an option and that I make no promises. I don't think "he had an ambitious target, but was honest that he may not reach it" is interesting enough to get such space on an article that could have much more informative details about a person, or one that has to be concise. It was added specifically for the shock value of the claim or guarantee that I was supposedely making.

I also don't think the scepticism that was met is worth mentioning, if we are clear that I wasn't promising anything anyway. The entire point is a little odd, given that I've had dozens of projects with way more conclusive story points that were not cited. I can link to the video that confirms there were no claims made when I announced the Japanese project, in case the original text may return.

5. The Japanese project was concluded when preparations for my first book, about to be published, took over too much of my time, and it ultimately only became a two-month project as a result. Current wording suggests otherwise. The mention of two weeks was because I fell very ill for two weeks near the start of the project that I thought a month later I'd make up for, by extending it. Maybe the two week extension is worth mentioning (I don't think it is), but if so the reason should be cited.

6. The Chinese project took place before the Japanese one, so the order looks odd here.

Hi Benny. Firstly, the reason I included the Chinese and Japo material is not out of spite, it's just that I knew about that as I am studying Japanese so had been following your efforts at the time. Japanese content is one of my focus areas for Wikipedia, so was interested in your efforts, I don't really know all the details of the other languages. I think you are completely correct, there should be more details about your more successful efforts, I'll try to put some of that in - Its just a matter of finding RS (reliable sources) that are clear about the progress made. I've seen a video of your efforts with Dutch, and it looked to me you did manage to learn that in the 3 months (or even less?) as you claimed, which was pretty impressive. For Japanese and Chinese, you did mention you were aiming for those particular levels (as linked in the videos), as part of your 3 month mission, and you didn't achieve those levels or fluency, so I think its fair the article reflects that... the article does mention the levels you got to... but using the term "partially successful" instead of "failed" in the context of trying to achieve something is possibly WP:WEASEL. Wikipedia content will tend to more write about the facts rather than add value judgements, but I would say that the term "failing" to describe an unsuccessful attempt at the 3 months project is not out of line with Wikipedia content writing style. User 81.101.255.137 has made recent edits to the section has added some positive comments about your Chinese language efforts, so the section is a bit more balanced now, I think. I've tried to stick strictly to the facts (by mentioning language profeciency levels aimed at achieved) rather than make value judgements and go down the whole "what is Fluency" philosophical debate. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Here are my follow-up thoughts, and I'm otherwise glad that you are attempting to stick to the facts.

1. On the "Unsupported attributions" reference:

I understand your reply about not wanting to mention reaching (arguably useful but still) non-fluent levels in a few months as any form of success, and I disagree with the WP:WEASEL reference, but I understand why you would think that's what is happening. I'd argue that a potential exaggeration towards the positive had been replaced with an exaggeration towards the negative, so neither one is neutral.

"Partially successful", rather than being a watered down "everyone is a winner" overly-positive attitude to any project (which I agree absolutely would merit the "Unsupported attributions" scepticism) actually refers to the fact that I stated multiple goals at the start of my Japanese project, such as getting enough practice to reach some conversational level, working on the project for multiple hours every day I was active on it, and having enough to be able to get around Japan without help. These unique goals were equally important in my announcement, but the success is being judged as the result of a single goal of the language level. Calling a multiple-goal project a "partial success" makes sense to me because I was able to communicate at a useful beginner level in Japanese ahead of my travels there (the level shown in the two-month video) as intended (one success because this was genuinely a unique goal), and I did indeed work hard for the time invested (another important goal; otherwise learning a few words casually would be enough, and I am happy that I put myself under the right amount of pressure to make useful progress).

But I definitely don't want to use these as a means to exaggerate and suggest success where there was none. I definitely didn't reach as high a level that I had wanted, and that was an unarguable failure of that goal. But that's one goal in a wider project. I'd argue that calling the entire project a failure is its own form of WP:ALLEGED. Incidentally, the "partial success" also includes other failures that I didn't achieve, that to me are equally important to the language-level goal. For instance, I wanted to upload a new video every 1-2 weeks, and I fell short of that. I also wanted to reach a conversational level that may not have fit into formal language learning limits, but that would have allowed me to have interactions to make friends or get unique insights into the culture un available to those with a basic conversational level. This would have been short of the N2 level, but its own success for me, and I didn't reach it, because I could only have basic conversations with patient speakers, which limited my cultural explorations compared to other projects. This is a separate failure to "didn't reach N2 level". I hope you can see that I considered this project a much more complex interwoven set of objectives than simply "N2 or bust", with multiple mini-failures and mini-successes, and I did try my best to emphasize this when I introduced the project.

So instead of a "success", or "failure" (too biased in both directions), or a "partial success" or a "partial failure" (technically correct based on my goals, but with a clear bias based on which word is used to paint a particular picture), I'd suggest neither kind of phrasing be used, and something way more neutral instead is. The current phrasing implemented after your addition suggests this, so I'm not writing this for edit requests, but to avoid future very simple "failure" labels getting added. As you said yourself, you don't know the details of my projects, seeing my work only in the context of a specific project or two, and perhaps with your own biases about what I was saying based on how seemingly impossible one of my stated goals was, to drown out the other ones, so I hope the above makes it a little clearer.

For the Chinese project, I also had a major goal of being able to document my travels through China and to interact with interesting Chinese people entirely in Mandarin, which I explained in detail at the end of my time in Taiwan and before I went to China. I intentionally withheld this information for the first months, for storytelling purposes, to surprise people that the project wasn't a 3-month one, but a 5-month one (the last two being cultural rather than linguistic), to pique their interest with new info after a few months. While the TV-show style of last-minute surprises kind-of worked, I definitely regret this now, and should have stated my cultural explorations goal at the very start of the project. The cultural aspect around the two months travelling through China by train and interacting with everyone in Mandarin, that were so important to me and that reflect the successes of my project, were largely ignored by critics, with the 3-month result being all that mattered. I had a spectacular experience in China (meeting a Buddhist monk thanks to connections and travels in Mandarin, even if we did ultimately speak more in Esperanto, and interviewing a Kung Fu master in a small farming village, and meeting countless people on the trains I took), all thanks to my Mandarin level, so labelling that project as a failure is also not congruent at all with how I envisioned the entire project, not just retrospectively, but from the very start, even if the specific-language-level I wanted to reach fell short.

I hope you see that this is definitely not an attempt to "weasel" a success out of a crashing and burning clear failure. Again, as it stands right now, the wording is fine (although I wish it wasn't as focused on one single goal in a much bigger project), so I say all of this to be clear in case future edits may be suggested.

2. The continued reference of skepticism.

You can see from my intro video on Japanese, that I learned the hard way that a narrative around one aspect of my goals (the previous Chinese C1 mission) had worked against me and received a lot of criticism, so I was much more humble in how I presented the project. I think skepticism I got from my Chinese project was deserved, because as I said above, I truly deeply regret how I presented that - opting for storytelling/suspense rather than clarity. But I didn't make this mistake at the start of my Japanese project, so listing skepticism just isn't necessary, as I agreed with those saying that reaching the level I had among my goals may not be possible in that project, but I was using that goal to push me to achieve as much as I could.

3. Poor citation.

I have to repeat again that the sentence "Lewis claims that anyone can learn a language to fluency in as little as three months", cites an article written by someone else, who themselves are just guessing what I think. They think I must believe "strongly" what they say, but is them guessing that based on the title of my book really a good final source for what *I* claim? Surely an article written by me, or an interview where I say those words would fit that bill?

All that source confirms is what people think I claim based not on talking to me, but on initial impressions. I can tell you right now that I don't claim that and never have, but I would say "The title of Lewis' blog and book have led to many believing that he thinks anyone can learn a language to fluency in three months" is a much more accurate statement, with that link given confirming it. But the link most certainly does not confirm what I am claiming, so I really hope someone sees this and edits or removes it.

The addition made recently around "Lewis explains the name of his business..." is much more accurate.

At the very worst, I could have been clearer at times, but I've never in my life made the current claim, and definitely not to the level that it's so central to a summary about me.

The only time I've ever said it, has a lot of necessary context surrounding it. I do think fluency in 3 months in a new language is possible, but with plenty of caveats. If you speak Spanish, you can learn Catalan to fluency in 3 months if you apply yourself and work hard every day for most of the day. In fact, you could probably achieve a B2 level in a dramatically smaller time given that goal and starting point. There are many more examples where the starting and end points matter. So yes, I do think it's possible, but then again, if you've never learned a language before and try to learn Japanese or Chinese from scratch in 3 months to fluency starting from a European language, I think nearly everyone on earth will fail at this. I was hoping that a decade of language learning experience (because experience does help you learn future ones faster) would have made it somewhat achievable for me, even though I knew failure definitely was an option.

Ignoring this context, it's possible to say I believe anyone can learn a language to fluency in 3 months, but that's clearly misleading.

I hope these thoughts help the article move in a more accurate direction. Thank you to anyone reading this. irishpolyglot (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Avalable for suggestions & citations (by Benny)

I'm not entirely sure how much someone can contribute to discussions about themselves, but I'm available to suggest content/improvement or links if needed. I can link to this account (verified twitter / link on the blog etc.) if confirmation of who I say I am is needed, although you can see that I've had this username registered for almost ten years, and is the same one I use on most social media. I won't make any contributions myself, but I think I can put content here for someone else to paste.

Thank you! Pinging irishpolyglot - if you know of any WP:RS independent of the subject that confirms where a 3 month fluency mission was a success, I'd like to put some successful ones in here to balance the story out!Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Deathlibrarian Sure! Let me list them out for you here, and give the best references I can. Several of these probably don't warrant including because I wasn't picturing myself proving them one day, since I'm not making any claims, but sharing the narrative of the learning experiences and my objectives, but I'll link to third party confirmation when possible. Also, I'll make a filter so emails about pings get prioritised and I see them better in future to reply faster than over 3 months later!

Please note that looking only at "3 month fluency" missions would miss the point. I've had plenty of successful missions that fit the "specific goal, specific timeline" that the brand is actually about.

My first two intensive projects with specific goals/deadlines were in 2005 in Toulouse (France) and in 2006 in Salamanca (Spain). Both where 3 month projects. 1. Goal: Pass a B2 exam in French, starting from approximately B1. I have my original certificate from the Alliance Française to date, and can scan or take a photo with it etc. This was in 2006. 2. Goal: Pass a C2 exam in Spanish, starting from approximately B2. I have my original certificate from the Instituto Cervantes, also in 2006, and can show it as proof if required. In both cases, I can't prove my starting point, but travel records through photos with associated timestamps to Flickr can confirm amount of time spent in these countries that reaching those levels for a relatively inexperienced language learner would seem reasonable. I can also confirm my Spanish spoken level independently through this live interview on Radio Aragón, conducted entirely in Spanish: http://www.irishpolyglot.com/mp3/entrevista.mp3 although this was a year or two later. These projects were logged online, but in a different way to how I do it on the newer blog. Projects taken on and described on the blog are discussed here: https://www.fluentin3months.com/all-the-missions/ All had various grades of success, but the most successful ones that reached the closest to the initial goal include: 3. Be able to have conversations in Hungarian in 3 Months, announced here: https://www.fluentin3months.com/hungarian-mission/ The first month wasn't as intensive study-wise as I wish, but the two months I actually lived in Hungary were a huge success, even though I didn't speak any related language. I have an interview video demonstrating abilities here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utbcp_4OtOE 4. Be able to "spontaneously communicate with some level of ease" in American Sign Language in one month. This one was much more successful than I originally had aimed, and I was ultimately able to do a documentary style video with unscripted interviews in ASL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCotgGSjxEk 5. Make a video in Klingon in 25 days. Announced here: https://www.fluentin3months.com/klingon-mission/ Final successful demonstration here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55G_TDLcURw 6. Learn enough Polish in 5 hours to make a video demonstrating basic spontaneous and unscripted Q&As. Announced here: https://www.fluentin3months.com/polish-mission/ Demonstration here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abU-8N7oOQU

The blog documents other projects where I aimed for very high and essentially "only" got a high end-goal. If the purpose was to reach that goal or it was a complete failure, then framing them as such would be fair. But I've always maintained that aiming very high is important, and achieving something a little below that is hardly grounds for equating the project as a waste of time :). I've always considered those projects successful based on what I was actually aiming for, with a public ambitious goal as helping me push myself. It's sad that the public goal has lead to my Mandarin, Arabic, Japanese, and German projects being counted as "failures". In the German one I failed one section of an intense 5 section mastery exam. I would like to think passing those other 4 sections isn't that bad an achievement, and I look back on it very proudly.

Other than the more famous missions, and the ones I've listed here, there are plenty of others on the blog with various grades of success, but the "proof" at the end wouldn't fit high enough standards at the end to get a mention on a Wikipedia page. Had I known, I'd have arranged for an independent academic writer to meet and evaluate me at the end of each project and publish his/her results. Fortunately, I had that opportunity with Mandarin, but you live, you learn!

Hopefully this explanation helps. Sorry if it's too wordy, and apologies if my videos speaking the languages aren't as convincing as third-party corroboration. Thanks otherwise! irishpolyglot (talk) 23:35, 08 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Deathlibrarian I'm not sure when it was added, but this line stood out to me as grossly inaccurate: "At one point he was put in jail for being cheeky to a Brazilian policewoman" It's problematic for multiple reasons. Firstly, the incident being referred to happened on my first ever visit to Brazil that happened in 2006, and not during the project being discussed in 2010, which is clearly implied. Secondly, I wasn't actually "put in jail". That can imply that I was arrested, and even if not said explicitly, having this falsity implied on my Wikipedia page can seriously impact my life, so I'd ask that it be removed.

It also wasn't a policewoman. What happened is that I was frustrated that they wouldn't extend my visa and vented my frustration after a very long day when I really shouldn't have, and they simply kept me in an interview room to teach me a lesson (honestly, I deserved what I got, but I didn't get anything more than being forced to cool down), but I certainly didn't go to jail or get formally arrested. It was also a FEDERAL police officer, not a regular policewoman, and while female, I really don't like the phrasing "being cheeky to a ()woman" as this can mean something very different to quite a lot of people, and no sexism whatsoever was involved. The gender of the officer is unnecessary information that paints a very different picture.

But if anything else, the fact that it happened 4 entire years before the events being discussed, is reason enough to remove it. Hopefully you'd agree. Thanks as always!

irishpolyglot (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

HI irishpolyglot - I have changed the wording about the police cell incident, but as for the rest, unfortunately, Wikipedia standards say the editors need *independent* verifiable quality sources. Se we can reflect the above, but it needs to be in an suitable article or published work. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

81.101.255.137 Edits

81.101.255.137 edits seem to be associated with the subject and only edits this concrete page. Maybe they should refrain from editing, or otherwise create a standard account and state any possible conflict of interest issues as per WP:COI Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Successful missions

So far this page has mostly unsuccessful missions on it, where he failed to achieve fluency (Czech, Japanese, Chinese) For reason of NPOV and WP BAL if someone has some references for successful missions, please insert them. I know Benny Lewis learnt Dutch pretty quickly, but need a good RS for it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Any help would be appreciated. Pinging irishpolyglot - if you know of any WP:RS independent of the subject that confirms where a 3 month fluency mission was a success. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Deathlibrarian See my reply above for a list of several successful projects. While my Dutch project wasn't successful in its initial goal (fluency), this video in Dutch was of me getting interviewed for the Onze Taal magazine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pufSm8fi76c . The lady interviewing me went on to write her article in the November 2011 edition (referenced here: https://onzetaal.nl/tijdschrift/inhoudsopgaven/november-2011/ - the article title was "Niet analyseren, gewoon doen")

Other official media that directly interviewed me in other languages include Radio Aragón in Spanish (link provided in my edit above), Raidió na Life in Irish (video footage of what they were airing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnT7Ya3mN6g ), The "Beo" magazine (also in Irish - online version of the article that includes a transcript of our conversation here: http://www.beo.ie/alt-benny-lewis-an-gael-ilteangach.aspx ), TQS (Now known as "V") in French, in Montreal (footage unavailable). There are other sources, but these are the easiest to reference for sure, and can certainly demonstrate enough skills in the languages to handle professional interviews.

Hopefully these third-party media links help! I got reminded of these from the mention of my Dutch project. Thanks!

irishpolyglot (talk) 01:22, 09 February 2018 (UTC)

149.254.234.239

Unfortunately, this page seems to have a pattern of anon users appearing every 3 months or so and making changes to the page that favour the subject. 149.254.234.239 edits seem to be associated with the subject and only edits this concrete page. Maybe they should refrain from editing, or otherwise create a standard account and state any possible conflict of interest issues as per WP:COIDeathlibrarian (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

81.153.94.194

Unfortunately, this page seems to have a pattern of anon users appearing every 3 months or so and making changes to the page that favour the subject. 81.153.94.194 edits seem to be associated with the subject and only edits this concrete page. Maybe they should refrain from editing, or otherwise create a standard account and state any possible conflict of interest issues as per WP:COI Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Factual errors still present on this page (by Benny)

This is Benny again. Checking back on this after a while, and I still see several issues on this page that I hope someone will edit, since I can't.

1. There are 3 references given for the phrase "Lewis claims that anyone can learn a language to fluency in as little as three months". I've already brought attention to this, but again, the first two links are articles written by other people who have jumped to that conclusion based on the 4-word title of my blog or book, and it's not a claim that I've ever made. Putting that aside for now, it's bad referencing to link to an article someone else wrote to cite a claim that I am personally making.

The final link, which is to a waybackmachine version of my blog (for some reason - the article is there on my blog right now - I've edited it to make it more about the title, without so much of an update of my current status at the time that was off-topic; I'm not sure why that means the older version is worth linking to, but it doesn't change the point I'm making here), also doesn't have anywhere in it say that I believe anyone can learn a language to fluency. I'm not sure why the current version isn't linked to, but even going by this older version I literally go out of my way to say that this claim doesn't exist in the very article that this Wikipedia article links to, to say that I *do* make a claim. In the linked waybackmachine article (which I can't edit to change what I said, in case there was any worry about that) you can see it says specifically:

"One confusion people have when they arrive on my site is this non-existent “claim” that I’m here to prove that fluency in 3 months is possible, which I’ve never made." Hopefully, the irony can be appreciated that this phrase is on that page specifically cited to say that I do make a claim.

I go on to give examples where achieving *various* things in 3 months could be possible, but absolutely do not say this applies to "anyone". More accurate phrasing would be: "Lewis believes that, under specific circumstances, some people could learn a language to fluency in as little as three months. Despite being the title of his blog, this is actually a very small part of what he talks about in his language learning philosophy".

2. I'd argue that citing HOW I suggest people learn a language is much more worth including, since this article is heavily biased in things that orbit around three-month projects, which I haven't even had since the Japanese one cited, from six years ago. The fact that I haven't had a three-month project for six years (but that my blog and audience is still going very strong) should really emphasize that those are a tiny fraction of what I write and care about when it comes to language learning.

There's no reference at all in the article to my speak-from-day-one philosophy, encouraging beginners to make mistakes, adapting to a more studious approach from the intermediate stages and up, etc. - the core of what my published books are about, and what the blog has been mostly discussing for the last six years, and also what I mostly wrote about during the first years when I also happened to have those intensive projects.

3. I still don't understand why the following phrase is there: "Lewis suggests that American entrepreneurs learn foreign languages[25] and notes that "In Ireland, we grow up hearing a range of Englishes"" Of all the things to quote me on that I've said over the years, this is an odd one to include on such a short Wikipedia page.

4. Please change the following phrase so it's more accurate: "He first started his attempts in 2009, in part, to prove that it was possible to learn a language fluently in three months" More balanced would be: "He first started his attempts in 2009, in part, to see if he could learn a language fluently in three months himself, and in part to simply encourage other learners and share his tips with them". My blog exists to encourage other learners. This is my motivation for doing it. It was not to prove anything to anyone as the phrase implies. I had travelled for many years before starting the blog and meeting many expats who continued to only speak English motivated me to start it, and encourage others to not fall into the same trap.

5. "however, he himself admitted he had failed to achieve his goal of achieving fluency in his 3 months of learning, partly because of its case system" Firstly, this article links to Steve Kaufmann's blog as a citation for sentences referring entirely to what I was saying and believing. Steve's opinion on my project is just that - opinion; and that of someone else. It has no place in a citation about what I actually said. Secondly, I didn't fail partly because of its case system. I definitely never believed that, and you can see exactly why I felt I failed in the article linked to. Whoever added this line was guessing that for themselves, or using Steve's opinion and then misleadingly phrasing it as "he himself admitted". Everything before this bit that I quoted is actually referring to the reasons I gave.

6. "At one point he was put in police cell for being cheeky to a Brazilian policewoman" How is this sentence relevant to anything in the article? While true, it just jumps out of nowhere, clearly with the motivation of painting me in a bad light. If we want to add this sentence, then we need to add all sorts of other equally unimportant random anecdotes that both make me look bad and make me look good. I'd argue that it's irrelevant, and if it's believed to be relevant then I have so many other additions to this article to suggest that have absolutely nothing to do with my language progress, but paint me in a good light just as much as this paints me in a bad one. But then it would get way off topic, of course. Easier would be to remove it.

Hoping someone can help push this article in a more accurate direction. Please tweet me @irishpolyglot if you have any questions. ( Pinging Deathlibrarian - continuing from a thread above, you can see that my removal requests here are consistently because of bad citation. Also, the policewoman one just comes out of nowhere, and I'd like to know why it belongs on this page when so many other random occurrences would not be here, when that has nothing to do with my language learning story. Other than wishing this article actually talked about my language learning methods, I've made no requests that anything new be added, and still just want what is already here to simply be accurate and balanced)

Irishpolyglot (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[User:Irishpolyglot|Irishpolyglot]] (talk • contribs)