Talk:David Meade (author)

Note on sources

This article has a mix of reliable sources along with others that wouldn't normally be used as sources in wikipedia such as "Planet X News". The reason for using those as sources is because they have articles authored by the subject of this article and he became notable and widely reported on in the media based on the content of those articles. He also complained that he had been misreported by the media - so when citing sources for his claims of the dawn nuclear attack on the US, US split north south by earthquakes, etc, it's important to have a citation to his original words written by him saying these things. Robert Walker (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

My Recent Edits

I've removed mention of myself including my blog on Quora and my Science 2.0 blog as I am not sure if they would count as reliable sources in Wikipedia - I have a "Conflict of Interest" anyway, someone else would need to assess if they are. Although Science 2.0 is reasonably high reputation and is cited sometimes here, I feel it is a bit of a gray area. Authors on Science 2.0 can write whatever they like with no editorial oversight, although it is closed in the sense that you do have to be accepted by Hank Campbell before you can write there. My quora blog is just a personal blog. And I don't think I'd count as notable according to the criteria of Wikipedia in this topic area.

I've also added a mention of his previous books in 2013 and 2015. Another change is that I've made it clear (with cites) that "David Meade" is a pen name and said that he "says" he studied astronomy at the University of Louisville amongst other subjects. There is no evidence he actually did and in this topic area authors often claim to have studied astronomy or to be astronomers, etc, who have no qualifications at all. I think myself as someone with a good background in astronomy that he can't possibly have studied the subject as he makes elementary mistakes that would mean you wouldn't even pass an admissions test for a course if they interviewed candidates and definitely would not pass such a course. For instance on Sept 23 he claimed that he personally saw "the sign" from his home.

This involved some planets in the morning sky, some in the evening sky, and the stars of Virgo blanked out by the sun. There is no way anyone could "see" it and to claim he did shows a profound ignorance of basic ideas of astronomy. There are many other things he says that makes it clear he never actually can have studied the subject - or at least, if he went to any classes at any stage, he didn't retain much of what he learnt. Of course that can't be put into the article, not unless we find a WP:RS (reliable source) saying so. But it's reason to make it clear it is a claim and not independently verified and so I put it as he "Says" he studied astronomy not that he actually did study astronomy.

This is a copy of my last comment in conversation with @LovelyGirl7: on my talk page, conversation here: [1] thought better to continue the conversation here if there is more to be said so that everyone can read it. Robert Walker (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I will remember not to use Quora. --LovelyGirl7 talk 21:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes - since anyone can post anything there, it doesn't count as a WP:RS in wikipedia. The main difference from Wikipedia is that the answers are written by individual authors rather than collaboratively. Each answer has a unique identifiable author (unless posted as anonymous). So for instance it has answers by Jimmy Wales[2]. Those I suppose are rather like posts in a personal blog written by Jimmy Wales, might be citable in some contexts depending. Or if they had a good post by a renowned scientist or expert. In that case I think it would be like the situation for blogs, see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are weblogs reliable sources? Robert Walker (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Robert.Sgerbic (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

<redacted>

@Katolophyromai: Hi what's up. I just figured out on this website (<redacted>) that David Meade's is the pen name of <redacted>. Do you all think this works: "David Meade is the pen name for an American conspiracy theorist and book author who goes by the real name of <redacted>."? --LovelyGirl7 talk 16:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, <redacted> is not a reliable source. It is a self-published blog written by a non-expert, which means it has basically no academic credibility and is definitely not a suitable source for a biography of a living person. The only way we could include information about his true identity would be if a reliable news source identifies him or if David Meade himself reveals his real name. So far, as far as I am aware, neither of those things have happened, so we are stuck with just a pen name. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That sucks @Katolophyromai:, but it’s fine. I was just asking and making sure. —LovelyGirl7 talk 01:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi both; I've redacted the name you added because it isn't sourced to an RS and contravenes the Biography of Living Persons policy. I'll be asking for revdel; please don't add speculations based on unreliable sources in the future. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That is probably a good idea. We do not want to get in trouble with the aforementioned man's attorneys for claiming that he was someone he may not actually be. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed; I've contacted an admin to perform the action, and have also just removed the unreliable source. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead section

How do you guys think the lead section looks? If not that great, what do you think I should add? Meade hasn't said his wife's name nor we don't know about his family. We also don't know what city he's born in and when he's born, but we do know for sure he's born in the United States according to his Goodreads website. One of the criteria's for B-Class is that the article has a defined structure. I did do work on the "Predictions", "See also", and "Criticism" sections and I think it's now time to shift gears to the lead section. If anything in the lead section needs to improve, I appreciate it if you tell me what I should add in the lead section. --LovelyGirl7 talk 00:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: Hi! The first paragraph is pretty okay, the second paragraph feels a quite promotional and unencyclopaedic to me. Additionally, Goodreads is primarily user-contributed content, right? If so, it may not count as a reliable source.

Regarding the rest of the article, the last paragraph of "Predictions" isn't about Meade at all - it's about a load of other non-notable conspiriacy theorists who aren't Meade. They belong in the Revelation 12 article if at all, and I don't even think they belong there. I'll leave the helpme tag in so a couple of my helper colleages can drop by and also give their opinions! -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 01:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I've disabled the {{help me}}, as this is not a single-editor issue. If you would like more advice or input on the article, you should contact the WikiProjects listed at the top of the page. Just leave a note saying "hey I'd love some feedback" with a link to this discussion. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alfiepates: thank you for telling me. I will remove the other conspiracy theorists you mentioned and work on the second paragraph. I’m not using Goodread as a source but it is in the external links though. Thanks for telling me everything I need to work on in the article. —LovelyGirl7 talk 01:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

In general, the lead section should be a summary of the rest of the article. Most, if not all, facts mentioned in the lead shoukd be mentioned in the main article as well. To me, it looks like the lead here is currently being used as a background section. You may want to consider an 'Early life' section, as is common in biographies. Knope7 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Knope7:  Done. How does the lead look now? —LovelyGirl7 talk 20:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That he practices Catholicism does not belong in the lead. I would also add a citation for the assertion of what he is most known for. Otherwise, I recommend leaving the lead for last. Because it's a summary, the lead is easiest to write once the rest of the article has taken shape. More importantly, would give more thought to the organization and scope of the article. My concern about the article is that it focuses almost exclusively on one prediction. Is the article intended to be a biographical article or is this an article about one event? If it's a biography, early life usually includes childhood and education, maybe a first job. If that's unknown, then that should probably be explained. Things like he published 13 books would be in a different section. If this is a biography, then his career as a whole would need more coverage. I hope that helps! Knope7 (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Knope7:, I moved the Catholic part to the “Early Life” section. The part where he wrote more than 12 books, do you think I should put it in the lead (just double checking)? It does mention also October as well in “Predictions”. —LovelyGirl7 talk 12:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Anything important enough for the lead should also be in the body of the article, which currently includes Early life, Predictions, and Criticism. Like I said, you may want to give some though to how you are organizing the article. If informtation does not fit into those three sections, then either adding more sections or renaming a section could help. The lead is easy to write once the rest of the article is more complete. Knope7 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a peer review for the article where you are allowed to do that @Knope7:. I did do a couple of changes to the lead. The way I organized the lead is this. I mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead about what he is and what his early life was. In the second paragraph of the lead I talked about what he is known for and added one sentence about both September and October. I did also added in the last sentence of the paragraph that his theories were debunked and criticized. And by the way, for “Early Life”, I found sources that he earned a masters degree in statistics and a degree in astronomy (I’m not sure which degree though). —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think you are missing my point. The article, to me, reads like it's 'Predictions of David Meade,' not a biography. Even the early life section is still missing key context that is contained in the lead. It is important to explain why more is not known about his early life. Is there any indication of how old he is? Early life should only include that: things pertaining to his early life. Career achievements that came later should go in another section. I appreciate that writing an article about someone who uses a pen name presents unique challenges. I recommend looking at Good Articles about similar individuals to see how other editors have met that challenge. Again, I point to the bigger questions I have about the article because the lead summarizes the important points of an article. If there are important points missing from the article, it is hard to say if the lead is complete or not. The lead should also not be introducing facts that are not in the article. Knope7 (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Knope7: we don’t know how old he is either. It’s David Meade; he’s a pen name. I will work on the lead and remove what’s not in the article and keep what is. —LovelyGirl7 talk 01:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, and that is a problem for a biographical article. It's not uncommon to not know an exact birth date or even a birth year, but to not know if this guy is 20 or 80 does seem like a real obstacle for a biography. Knope7 (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Knope7: I did insert a new paragraph in the article mentioning that not much is known about his early life. By the way though, I'm requesting copy editing, since I feel it needs one more round of copy editing. --LovelyGirl7 talk 01:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Claimed qualifications

Where it says he has a degree in astronomy - since it is a pen name and he has not revealed his real name, there is no way to find out what his real qualification is (short of finding out what his real name is, and that would be original research as his name has not been published in a WP:RS and is not revealed by himself).

He claimed to have 'seen' the sign on sept 23 from his own home. That is impossible because some of the planets in this conjunction were only visible in the morning, some only visible in the evening sky and the stars themselves hidden by the sun. Anyone who had a good background in astronomy, amateur or professional, would know that. So there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of this claim, especially since this is a topic area in which people often claim to be astronomers who are not. Much of the rest may be true but this particular detail is not very likely. I'm not sure what basis on which to suggest an edit though. Perhaps just to say somewhere that his details of his qualifications are based on his own assertions as we can't independently verify such claims for a pen name? Robert Walker (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Robertinventor: I saw the Astronomy degree part on this source somewhere. He is a pen name which I agree with you. I removed the statement about him getting a degree in astronomy. He did get a masters degree in statistics that’s for sure but we don’t know which degree in astronomy.

The part you mentioned about him seeing it from his home, doesn’t the Daily Express has it (which link)? He did used bible codes and the Giza Pyramids for his September 23rd prediction. —LovelyGirl7 talk 17:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I agree with Robertinventor. I do not think David Meade really studied astronomy. I was skeptical of his qualifications as soon as you added them because I know that pseudoscientists claim to possess qualifications they do not have all the time. (For instance, Zecharia Sitchin, the man who coined the word "Nibiru" as the name of a planet to begin with, claimed to be able to read ancient Sumerian, but his "translations" show that his knowledge of the language was fundamentally nonexistent; for instance, he translated a word for a kind of cult statue as "rocket ship.") I did not challenge it at first because I did not have solid evidence, but, based on Robertinventor's description above, I am pretty sure David Meade has very little real astronomy background. It is possible he may have taken one astronomy class as an elective or something, but he clearly has not studied it in depth. We should rephrase the sentence to make it clear that all we know for certain is that he claims to have studied astronomy. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: it says he studied astronomy on his biography at Planet X News though. I think what Robert means is that he might not have had a degree in astronomy. —LovelyGirl7 talk 18:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: His biography on his own website claims that he studied astronomy, but he could be lying or twisting the truth; I think we would need independent verification to know for sure, but, as Robert pointed out above, since David Meade has not disclosed his real name, it is impossible to independently verify his educational background. Furthermore, the word "studied" is itself inherently vague; it could mean he earned a Ph.D in the field, or it could mean he took one astronomy class as an elective, but dropped out after the first lecture.

Other aspects of his biography seem a little suspect too. The biography also, for instance, claims: "After graduation, he worked in forensic investigations for a number of years. The last 10+ years he has spent with Fortune 1000 companies, writing special reports for management. He is a specialist in research and investigations." First of all, we have no real way of knowing if he is just making all of this up. Second of all, a lot of what it says is extremely vague. For instance, which companies did he work for? What "special reports" was he writing? For all we know, this statement could mean he was working at a Walmart (a Fortune 1000 company) somewhere in Kentucky keeping track of minor bookkeeping at the cash register. I am not saying that is what happened, but I do think that we might want to take anything Meade says (even about himself) with a grain of skepticism. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: We don’t know if he worked at Walmart or what the name of the Fortune 1000 company he worked for, but we do know he claimed he did work for them. I did added in parantheses (it is unknown however). I even did changes in that sentence and started with "On his website" to in that sentence (and paraphrased it) as well as the astronomy sentence. I don’t even trust what Meade says or predicts. —LovelyGirl7 talk 21:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: and @LovelyGirl7: I seriously doubt he has any kind of qualification in astronomy. I suppose he could have attended a course in it, especially a noncredit course - and studying it doesn't mean he passed. The biography at Planet X News is probably written by him. I think that would be normal practice for a blog.

The story about him seeing the sign from his home is in the Sun here [3] - but sorry, while writing this, I thought - that the sun is not a reliable source, so I should look a bit further. So - I have just turned up this interview [4] where he says to the interviewer that they will see "part of the sign" - well you would see the planets in the morning and the evening - and that you will see the full sign in Stellarium. So given that the Sun often misquote he may just have told them that he saw it in the Stellarium software which simulates the sky, as in that interview. That way, there is no problem showing the sun, stars and planets all in one screen because it is just software with an icon for the sun.

So it's not such an open and shut thing as I thought. There are numerous things he says that show sloppy research - e.g. claiming that the Vatican run the large binocular telescope on Mount Graham when they only run a much smaller observatory that happens to be on the same mounntain - or that the South Pole telescope is an infrared one when it is in fact microwave, none of those are kind of watertight cases for not understanding astronomy. I mean he has surely not got a degree in astronomy, just to have the idea the solar system could have an extra planet that crosses Earth's orbit, the many different 'observations' that he claims to show it including e.g. the claim that Melissa Huffman videoed it as a bright object next to the sun as bright nearly as the sun with whatever camera or mobile phone she used (actually an offset lens reflection), and in the same book saying the US government built an infrared telescope at the south pole to observe it at great cost (his claim about their microwave telescope at the south pole). I don't see how he could have an astronomy degree. But I suppose there isn't enough there to be sure he hasn't done a course in astronomy, especially a noncredit one, with just a pass or fail, indeed, he could fail it and still say he studied astronomy. Robert Walker (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: I removed the part where he got a degree in astronomy. I did do some changes to the "Early Life", as well as some paraphrasing. I did do some paraphrasing on the astronomy part where he claimed to study it. --LovelyGirl7 talk 21:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have revised the wording to make it less confusing and I have added mention of The Washington Post's report that the University of Louisville could not confirm whether Meade had actually been a student there. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: and @LovelyGirl7: Okay that's all looking good and good idea to add the mention of The Washington Post's report. Robert Walker (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: and @Katolophyromai:, feel free to comment on the peer review about the article and feel free to give feedback to it as well. Thank you guys, especially you @Katolophyromai: since your like a mentor to me. —LovelyGirl7 talk 23:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Change in title

Good. I actually logged in to raise questions about the former title "David Meade (conspiracy theorist)". This looks much better. BroVic (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist"

Checking the sources, maybe I missed something, but I did not find one that referred to Mease as a "conspiracy theorist". Time called him a "conspiracy fabulist", and a number of the other articles referred to others who believe in Nibiru as "conspiracy theorists", but not specifically to Meade. As the term is one that carries negative connotations for many, we should not be calling him one unless it's reliably sourced, and should certainly avoid it being the primary descriptor of him unless it's how he is commonly described. This is a WP:BLP matter.

A conspiracy theory is something with a specific definition, requiring a conspiracy - an effort of multiple people. An astrological prediction, even one that may seem kooky to some, is not a conspiracy theory, and that prediction is what the sources seem to be talking about. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding: it is of particular note that the url for this link suggests that the title of the article originally included the mention of "conspiracy theorists", and that the page may have been later edited to avoid that term, as that is no longer in the header. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources to call him a conspiracy theorist:

• Doomsday Conspiracy Theorist David Meade Won't Let Go of the Apocalypse—Now Says One Billion Will Die. Newsweek
• Despite conspiracy theorist David Meade’s claims that the world would end on Sept. 23, Earth appears to be spinning on just fine. Time magazine
• Doomsday conspiracy theorist says world is ending on October 15th. AOL News
• And here's a Washington Post article citing Meade's belief that the mainstream media is conspiring to misrepresent his Niburu apocalypse warnings. He also believes deep state conspiracies "orchestrated by the controlled media and globalists such as billionaire George Soros" exist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the only one that actually lists any conspiracy theories doesn't call him a conspiracy theorist. I'd discount the Newsweek statement anyway, as it's the headline, and headlines tend to be looser than the article itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

We summarize in our own words what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic. "Conspiracy theorist" is completely equivalent to the harsher "conspiracy fabulist" and the range of sources amply justifies the more common term "conspiracy theorist". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: and @LuckyLouie: Exactly. @NatGertler: Those sources LuckyLouie just pointed out to you shows he’s a conspiracy theorist. —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, @NatGertler:, I did not list the many sources that called him a conspiracy theorist in the body text. But there are plenty of those, too, just a Google search away. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but if what's important about him is that he's a conspiracy theorist, it might be nice if the article actually covered some of those conspiracy theories, rather than merely his end-times predictions. My main concern was triggered when someone added a link to this page from another end-times pronouncement and described him as a "another conspiracy theorist", as if end-times predictions were conspiracy theories. (But really, the end will come when I run out of these coupons for 50 cents off of bags of Peanut M&Ms.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, @NatGertler: I agree that his most important characteristic is his EOTW (end of the world) predictions. The conspiracy stuff is mostly to support the EOTW claims, and should not be presented as the most important thing about him. I would support restructuring the lede to start with his EOTW claims, and then mention the conspiracy theories that he uses to support this. How feel the rest of you? --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to hedge, since we have good sources to call him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the lead. But if you want to second-guess the sources, just read Meade's web site: "Is there a conspiracy of secret societies that intend to control the destiny of the world? Are we in a short pause between the end of the Church Age and the beginning of the Day of the Lord? How does Planet X fit into this? Does North Korea have hidden plans which have been uncovered? What are they and what are they targeting? In this startling book, David Meade explains that his webmaster’s account was hacked, and likely by agents of an enemy regime. He further explains why – what their ultimate intent is and what their plans for the United States involve..." So no, his end times stuff isn't just objective religious research. It's explicitly intertwined with claims of conspiracy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly @LuckyLouie: and @Gronk Oz:, I mean there has been some conspiracies about the 2012 scares 5 years ago. And there has also been websites as LuckyLouie said that he is a conspiracy theorist. I would say he’s a end times conspiracy theorist. —LovelyGirl7 talk 23:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

In my view, it seems completely reasonable to describe David Meade as a "conspiracy theorist." He comes up with theories about conspiracies; that is pretty much the definition of a "conspiracy theorist." I would, however, caution LovelyGirl7 against throwing the term around too recklessly. It is usually considered pejorative, even when it is accurate. I would also state that, contrary to your recent addition to the article Nostradamus, Nostradamus was not a "conspiracy theorist." His writings have been used extensively as sources of material for conspiracy theorists, but he himself was just an astrologer and a charlatan, since he never actually claimed that there was any kind of "conspiracy." Instead, he just wrote a bunch of vague poems and claimed they were about the future. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018 copy edit

@LovelyGirl7: Did additional copy edit. Here are a few random notes in advance of your GA:

• he has written investigative reports on abnormal state administration and sheets of executives for Fortune 1000 organizations. Did a word get clipped there? I'm not sure what "sheets of executives" means.
• With the title Planet X - The 2017 Arrival I'd rather see an en-dash in there than a hyphen to fit Wikipedia's style, unless you feel that's important to the title.
• compared to other notable failed doomsday preachers. By this point of the article Meade's notability has been established and I feel you could get rid of other notable from this sentence and the next.
• there would be flooding similar to Noah's Ark – might this be better as "flooding similar to the Genesis flood narrative"? (or perhaps pipe out "flood" which is already in the sentence)
• For the copyedit I removed some "also"s that aren't needed (particularly in addition/also pairings). I threw in some non-breaking spaces for line wraps. It didn't need a whole lot; you can tell that previous editors have done a good job.
• Since his education cannot be verified, I'm wondering if it should be in the infobox. Perhaps there should be some qualifying note like the Alma mater reference. You can use |footnotes= to add notes to the bottom of the infobox, something like "unverifiable claim", although that's an invitation for removal.
• Just FYI, WikiSource has a couple versions of the Bible if you want to use it. For example: Luke 21:25–26. But the linked articles are probably more than sufficient.

If you have any questions or comments, please post them here. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: They have done a great job. As for your suggestions, I did fixed most of the stuff you told me. I also did added in the "External Links" section linking the Luke 21:25-26 part to Wikisource using the Wikisource template. I did added for the footnotes part that he's a pen name and unverifiable claim as well. I do hope someone reviews my article though. --LovelyGirl7 talk 21:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It can take a while. I put up my first article for GAN on 4 October, so I've been waiting four months longer than you! I'm not on any huge deadline though, not like I have to get it done before the end of the world. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I know it can take a while but I'm ready to see if it passes or not. Also I did added a part mentioning the mind reader of the same name (thoughts on that sentence)? --LovelyGirl7 talk 22:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: sorry for not replying sooner. After September 23, 2017 passed, a European mind reader and mentalist with the same name received multiple death threats and declined he’s the American conspiracy theorist. In the Irish News source, he doesn't call him a "conspiracy theorist" and I'd be wary of that since it'd be the first use of that term since the lead. (Perhaps it's more of an American term?) He does refer to him as a "crackpot" in one of the quotes, and the story refers to him as an "apocalyptic naysayer". I think I might expand it a bit as: "An Irish mind reader and mentalist with the same name received multiple death threats when news websites linked him to the predictions after September 23, 2017. The man denied being the doomsday crackpot and worked with a legal expert to have the false reports removed." Getting the stories taken down supports the position that they're not the same person. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh definitely not the same person. And when it says 'mind reader' BTW its as in those mind reader magic shows. Done for fun, and you aren't meant to take it seriously but rather to enjoy the shows, be amused, and wonder how he really did it. Here is an example video [5]. His facebook page is here [6] and he talks about the mistaken identity issues on the same page. Scroll back to September 2017 (keep typing Ctrl + End) to find his posts about the death threats, several ones, he got many death threats. Robert Walker (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I revised that sentence and made changes to it per your suggestions. I’m also working on Jim Bakker’s article while waiting for a reviewer to review the Meade article. @Robertinventor: your correct (they are 2 different people). The mentalist didn’t get debunked in any of your doomsday debunked posts and nor has he wrote books.—LovelyGirl7 talk 16:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Image

@Katolophyromai: I've noticed recently it is requested that there is a image of him (which is on top of the page). I've been saying it may be good to have a image in the article. However though, the problem is, I'm not sure which image of him Wikipedia would accept for him ([7]). There is only one image of him on Flickr but it's "all rights reserved" which Wikipedia doesn't allow. Is there any image I can upload for him on Google Images or Bing I can use for the article since I noticed it is requested a image is used in the article (according to the top of the talk page)? And if that image does seem accurate, which licensing in Special:Upload would it fit best under? I appreciate any help on finding a good image of him. --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I tried to add a copy of the cover of one of his books back on 3 February, but apparently that was not suitable for the "non-free content" conditions so it was removed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ikr @Gronk Oz: @Katolophyromai:. I really want this to pass the GA thing. And it says it is good to add a image of him. I wish Wikipedia allowed this stuff. On the bright side though, the article Chanchal Kumar Majumdar doesn't have a image of him, and it's a GA article. I'd add a picture of him but not the cover. --LovelyGirl7 talk 04:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Also since the image of a book cover won't work on this article, is there any image from Google Image or Bing Images that I can use for him (besides a book cover)? Or is there any other image here I can put in this article (early life, reactions, infobox) since it requests a image (besides the book cover)? --LovelyGirl7 talk 16:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: what's your exact query? I was summoned by helpme on your talkpage. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I would like to know which images I could use for David Meade (but not a book cover) in the article since it says on top it’s requested a image is wanted to improve its quality. Since this article is a GA nominee, I do still have time for improvements (which I’ve been doing). However, I think an image wouldn’t hurt though, so I’m just curious as to which David Meade image I can use for him (Flickr, Google Images, Bing Images, any other image platform). —LovelyGirl7 talk 14:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: 99.9% of the images that you would find on these platform would not have compatible licence with wikipedia/commons. As for as a GA candidate, when the article is about a place, or building, or some sort of apparatus (microscope or gun), or software (FreeBSD OS is a GA); these types require images to explain what the topic is. Unless you are writing a biography of a person with out of ordinary physique, photos are not that much important. But having a photo (even one) would be an advantage.

On Google, you can refine the results by selecting licence type. I will search for that once I get on a computer. But the best bet would be searching for Web without any filters, but for government sites. Most of the times images on US gov sites are in public domain. You can check images uploaded by me at commons. I'm not sure if this would show them: Special:Uploads/Usernamekiran. My are is totally different. If I want something in PD, I directly search with site:cia.gov or sites of FBI, .mil, and so on. I will comment here again, and ping you if I find something. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: when you get on a computer and find one, let me know. I know it’s not important despite what it says on top, but it could even be better though. As for GA status, on the bright hand, a GA article I know didn’t have a image in the infobox of that person. —LovelyGirl7 talk 16:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Meade (author)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 09:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Is it reasonably well written?

Resolved issues

"In The Washington Post article, he said" - this needs rewording. "In a September 2017 Washington Post article ..." would be much better.  Done "Meade has appeared on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory and has been interviewed by the BBC in London and on American national TV and radio program Glenn Beck Program." - when did these interviews take place? Years would probably be sufficient. I’ve removed the BBC part from the article since I can’t find sources for when he was on BBC. It did say on his website that he was on BBC but there isn’t sources as to when. I did added the dates he appeared on Glenn Beck and Coast to Coast AM. "He first predicted Nibiru would hit the Earth in October 2017,[24] but moved it forward to September 23" - why and when did he move the prediction? He hasn’t said why he moved it to 9/23/2017. "An Orange County, California TV station accidentally warned viewers of his prediction" - when did this happen? Did they later apologize? I’ve added the dates and how the alert was caused. "Meade told The Washington Post that his September 23, 2017 prediction" - when? It is unknown as to when he said his prediction was based on bible codes. "He used the number 33 for his September 23 prediction" - this needs some clarification. How does one make a prediction using a number? I’ve clarified the 33 part and in detail stating that "Jesus lived for 33 years" and that "Elohim, the Canaanite god who was later adopted as the supreme god of ancient Israel, is mentioned 33 times in the Bible". Better, but is there any indication of how he used the number to come up with that specific date? The reader now understands the number 33 has religious significance, but what does the number 33 have to do with September 23, 2017? He stated 33 is the significant number for his prediction. I added in the article that 33 is the significant number for his prediction. "He also claimed, in a Glenn Beck interview," - when? September 21, 2017. "He also made predictions that North Korea would launch ..." - when and where were these prediction made? For North Korea, he said that back in September 2017 and he also stated that they would use a Russian submarine from a California coast, not a ICBm missile that NK hasn’t been testing since November 2017. "In 2018, Meade made predictions for that year, such as North Korea becoming a world-class superpower in March. In an interview he predicted the Nibiru would destroy the Earth in spring" - both these statements appear to be attributed to the same reference, however, as they are two separate sentences this leads one to think the two predictions were made separately. Were they? They were both predicted by him. He interviewed with Paul Begley and he first stated that Nibiru would destroy earth in spring. Until he came up with a month. Yes but were both predictions made in the same interview? If they were, this needs to be clarified to the reader. Yes. I’ve even made some changes to the 2018 paragraph section. I mentioned Paul Begley in the article as well. "He announced that April 11, 2018 would be the start of the apocalypse" - when and where did her make this announcement? I’ve clarified it with the sentence “In a article on Soul Ask, Meade announced that April 11, 2018 would be the start of the apocalypse[45], but stated in a article published by International Business Times on February 15, 2018 that the apocalypse would begin in March 2018”. "In a article on Soul Ask" - as there is no wikilink for Soul Ask, what it is needs to be described to the reader. I.e if it was a newspaper, you'd need to say "In a article in the newspaper Soul Ask ..." Be warned Soul Ask is likely to be one of the websites I challenge in the source review. Their 'About Us' section gives no indication of the editorial oversight [8]. The article in question also is not attributed to a journalist, meaning there's no way to see if there person who wrote it is an experienced journalist. I'm certain the source fails WP:RS I added "In a article on the website Soul Ask". Thoughts? As a general rule it would be a good idea to clarify what type of website it is. News website/conspiracy theorist website/Christian blog website or whatever it is etc etc. Also keep in mind even if you do find an appropriate description for it it's still going to be challenged in the source review. I removed the website and changed the source to the skepticism multimedia website Disclosed TV, along with the sentence mentioning it. It’s really unknown to which website Soul Ask is, honestly. I really appreciate the effort you're putting into this, but be warned this new source may not satisfy reliability standards either. We can cross that bridge later though if you'd like to focus on other issues now. Identifying reliable sources can be tricky at first. You could read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, or failing that you can nominate sources at WP:RSN and have more experienced editors make a ruling on them. If nominating a source at RSN make sure you specify the article in question being edited (so obviously in this case David Meade (author)), the specific article at the website in question and the specific statement being used in the article. Don't just ask something along the lines of 'Is Disclose.tv a reliable source?' I mention this purely for your own personal knowledge as you may find it helpful down the track, "were labeled as hype" - I'd put 'hype' in inverted commas  Done

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Reference No. 4 features the quote "researcher, investigator, and writer". That's far too generic a statement to require adding a quote into the actual reference itself. I'd lose it. Also don't give sentence fragments as quotes. If you are going to keep it, please list the entire sentence. Same issue with reference No. 5: "lists 13 books under Meade’s name, all were self-published" - this needs to be a full sentence.

   I’ve expanded the sentence a bit to “He is also a writer, researcher and investigator who has written and self-published at least 13 books”.

   Ok, but you still need to fix others, such as the other example I listed above.

   Right, I've fixed a few issues myself so this is now the only remaining issue with how the references are formatted. You don't actually need to put quotes into references. The main reason you'd do this is if the source was behind a paywall or offline, so the easy solution would be to just delete them all. Otherwise make sure they are all full sentences, and attribute them where appropriate. For example in the quote in the source by Gajanan, Mahita you should definetely mention who is making that quote. So let's say the quote was made by David Meade. In this case, format the '|quote=' parameter accordingly: '|quote=Meade, David: [Whatever David Meade said]'.

   For the quotes, I've added the author to who is saying it as you said.  Done

Resolved issues

There's A LOT of inconsistency in the reference section. Reference No. 1 does not have a retrieval date, yet reference No. 2 does. They all need to be consistent. The publications need to be listed consistently as well. Reference No. 1 is attributed to "Washington Post" , whereas reference no. 2 is attributed to "The Washington Post". I can see the same issue later on with "NewsWeek.com" and "NewsWeek". Reference No. 2 has the publishing company (Nash Holdings LLC), whereas reference No. 1 does not. You need to pick a specific format and then stick with it for every single reference.  Done Better, but there's still a few problems. There's still a lot of inconsistency with whether sources have retrieval dates. In reference No. 35 the retrieval date is actually formatted differently from all the rest (2017-09-23 - as apposed to other sources which say 'September 23, 2017'). You either need to have retrieval dates for all sources or none at all, and if you have them they all need the same date formatting. Reference No.35 is fixed.  Done on that one. Ok, but you still need to fix all the retrieval dates. I’ve fixed most of them to “date=“. Most isn't good enough, let me know when all of them are consistently formatted. Also are you aware of the difference between date= and accessdate=? So date= is the date the article was published. accessdate= is the date the article was last checked to see if it was still online. There are almost always two different dates. Accordingly you can have both, you just need to be consistent. So either have accessdates for every source of for none. All have been changed to “date=“. I’m aware with the differences between the 2. There's 11 sources that still have retrieval dates. The first one is reference No. 17 (Mack, Eric) and the last one is No. 49 (Mind reader with same name as David Meade receives death threats after failed prediction) Several sources do not have dates though dates are readily available at the source itself. I.e the Kluger, Jeff source has no date though clicking on the link reveals it was published on September 19, 2017.  Done You've fixed the example I gave, but I'm sure there are several more. Reference No. 6 isn't attributed to a date though clicking on the website clearly shows it was published on September 16, 2017. Have you clicked on every single reference without a date of publication and made sure they do not have a date of publication listed at the article? I fixed reference 6 (changing url, publisher/work, added author name). I say the reference 6 part is  Done. Reference No. 6 isn't attributed to anyone at all. Why isn't this attributed to its publisher, Fox News? Same issue with reference No. 7. I'm not even going to point out the others. Make sure every reference is attributed to its publisher. I’ve added Fox News to work. I’ve Wikilinked it as well along with other references. Reference No. 42 ("North Korea, Yellowstone and Nukes Triggering Supervolcanoes") still isn't attributed to a publisher. Also I don't think the quote from the article in the reference "Why is David Meade predicting a Kim Jong-un nuclear attack on Yellowstone?" adds anything of value. I'd remove it. In general try not to add more information than is needed to references. Fixed the Yellowstone part.  Done Also hows reference 2? Reference 2? The Guarino, Ben one? Well I'm really confused as to why you've listed Jeff Bezos as the publisher. It's my understanding he's not the publisher, he's the owner. Also if you're going to list the publisher as well as the work for one reference you should make an effort to do it for all of them. It's not a requirement to have both, and there is an exemption to the rule whereby you shouldn't list both if they are pretty much exactly the same. So if the work is Time magazine and the publisher is Time Inc. you wouldn't have to list both. On a similar note, you need to present all the publishers in the same manner. For example, you can't list half with their common name (I.e "The Washington Post") and others with their base url in lower case (I.e "coasttocoastam"). The later needs to reformatted to Coast to Coast AM. Every single publisher listed in lowercase needs to be reformatted to how you would describe the website if you were writing it in a sentence. Wikilink where possible.  Done Go through and make sure one by one that they have all been fixed. I can see at least one that hasn't been (I.e politicianreviews). Fixed the politicianreviews part to Politician Reviews Checklinks find a few issues, nothing major though: [9] Also anything in brackets in a wikilink should be piped out. So Time (magazine) should be changed to just Time. Inverse (website) should be changed to just Inverse.  Done Why is the authors name in Reference No. 21 (JERRY GADIANO) all in capitals? And why is the there a date in brackets in the title? Also reference No. 19 and Reference No. 21 are the same reference. Get rid of one and format the other accordingly so you can use one reference twice as opposed to having two identical ones. Fixed both parts. Don't forget you can give a reference a name so that it can be used multiple times yet still only appear once in the reference list, like reference No. 1 and No. 2 does. This is completely OK, just don't use the same reference twice so that it appears twice in the reference list. Reference No. 42 (Paul Seaburn) lists the work as "Mysterious Universe" and the website as "mysteriousuniverse.org.". You don't need both, so drop the 'website' parameter. Same issue with 'Glenn Beck' and glennbeck.com.  Done There's still one instance of glennbeck.com alongside 'Glenn Beck'.  Done When you look through the references, note that some of the publishers are listed in italics (I.e The Washington Post), while others are not (I.e Canada Free Press). This is because some reference use the 'work=' parameter, which displays italics, and others use the 'publisher=' parameter, which does not. This, like everything else, needs to be consistent. It is possible for a reference to have both the work= and publisher= parameters filled out, however, when it comes to websites you need to have a consistent policy on which one of these parameters you use if the source is only attributed to one website/journal/newspaper etc. What about now? I'm seeing two instances of 'Glenn Beck', one of 'Mysterious Universe', one of 'Discloce.tv', two of 'International Business Times' and one of 'Canada Free Press' not appearing in italics.  Done There's some inconsistency in how sources are listed as self-published. Some say 'Self-published on [publisher]', one says 'self-published by David Meade' (this also needs a capital on 'Self') and one just says 'self-published' (again, with no capital). These need to be formatted consistently. Since David Meade is already listed as the author, saying 'self-published by David Meade' is a bit redundant. I'd either say 'Self-published on [publisher]' or just 'Self-published'. When I do the source review I may challenge whether these sources should be used at all though.  Done Most of your references use first= and last= parameters. Two however are using author=. When you use first= and last= it automatically formats the last name first, followed by a comma and the first name in the reference. When you use author=, it displays the authors name exactly as you've written it in the parameter. Due to this you've got most of your sources appearing like this: 'Darnay, Keith', but then you've got two formatted differently: 'Christopher M. Graney' and 'James David Manning'. Like everything else in the references, this needs to be formatted consistently. If you're unsure what to do with the middle name, just have it follow the first name in the first= parameter. So in this case you should format it "|first=James David |last=Manning". I don't think Christians In Pakistan is a reliable source. Also if the article is attributed to something like 'Web Desk' don't format those words as if there were someones name. Just leave the author blank, or attribute it to something like 'Staff'.  Done

• B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

Are you aware Andrew Carrington Hitchcock is a white supremacist? I understand you've only used him for non-controversial information but this source definitely fails WP:RS and definitely shouldn't be the kind of source we are encouraging people to use. Incidentally the fact that David Meade has been willing to be interviewed by him speaks volumes about the kind of human being Meade is. Have you searched to see if any more reliable source have commented on the fact Hitchcock interviewed Meade? If they did that would definitely be worth mentioning. In any case I think you should get rid of all of the Hitchcock sources, but you are most welcome to take any source I question to WP:RSN for a third opinion. If RSN says the source is reliable I'll accept it.

I wasn't aware until you told me. I do agree that interviewing Carrington shows what kind of person Meade is; the guy is a lunatic false prophet who has failed so many times and only cares about his stupid books. I've removed the Carrington source and replaced it with Fox News, so  Done deal with it. I do need help with the date part for Fox News though, if you don't mind fixing it to how most of the refs are when it comes to date; same with ref 29. Thanks!

Right, so in the citeweb template if an article has an author and a date the date will appears after the author's name. If there is no author, for some reason the date will appear at the end of the reference. I'm not sure why they made it work that way, but they did. It's not going to be an issue in terms of passing or failing this.

You should only ever use self-published sources if more reliable sources cannot be found. The sentence "he has written books related to politics, such as The Coup D'état Against President Donald J. Trump and The Coming Clinton Economic Collapse" is currently backed up by two self-published sources. Are you absolutely certain a more reliable source hasn't commented on the fact Mead published these books (or others like them, we don't have to specifically use these two books if he's written others).

I’m certain.“Writers-web-service”, “Ebookit” and Amazon are the only websites his books were cited.

Well actually I just did a search myself and several other sources you use mention them. 'The Coup D'état Against President Donald J. Trump' is mentioned in sources by Newsweek and Bustle which are currently used in the article [10][11] and 'The Coming Clinton Economic Collapse' is mentioned in a Washington Post article which is already being used as well [12]. The fact that these reliable sources mention them means you definitely should not be using self-published sources. I'll make the change myself.

Same issue for what references 22 and 23 and then 31 and 32 are used to back up. Are you certain you can't attribute any of this information to a more reliable source?

There isn’t really any sources for his books but “Writers-web-service”, “Ebookit” and Amazon.

I don't think Disclose.tv. is a reliable source. Clicking on the author link for that article [13] also gives us no information about him. If he listed qualifications or other publications he had written for (and that we could verify) it might be acceptable, but as it is I'm confident the source does not satisfy WP:RS.

Right, so just either replace Disclose.tv with a more reliable source or just get rid of that statement attributed to it entirely and we should be good to go. Freikorp (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed the source, however I tried to look for reliable sources, but I couldn't find one. I removed it from the article, but if you would like to put it back in the article with a reliable source, feel free to do so. However, you can also fix the sentence as well.

• C. No original research:
• Is it broad in its coverage?

  A. Major aspects:

  B. Focused:

• Is it neutral?

  Fair representation without bias:

• Is it stable?

  No edit wars, etc:

• Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
• A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
• B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

  The 'Woman of the Apocalypse', unlike the Pyramids, is not household knowledge. Accordingly your image of it needs a more specific caption. You need to inform the reader how this statue is related to the phenomena. Simply adding information in brackets that this is a depiction of said woman should be sufficient.

  For the Woman of the Apocalypse image, what do you think I should change my caption to?

  I've modified it myself. Also I'm personally OK with two pictures but as the pyramids are only loosely associated with the article don't be surprised in the future if someone thinks that image should be removed.

• Overall:

  Pass or Fail: I can't consider passing this until the references and prose issues are cleaned up. That's a fair chunk of work, so I'm going to wait until that is done before I start looking at the reliability and verifiability of sources. Freikorp (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Exactly. Good thing it’s on hold. I have to address the issues first, then we talk. I’ll address all issues regarding the article. —LovelyGirl7 talk 15:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I really hope this GA review is being an educational experience for you, and will help you in preparing articles in the future prior to GA nomination. Just for your own information, there have been a lot more issues with this article than you would expect to find in an article being nominated for GA. Some reviewers might have quick-failed it accordingly. There's also been a lot of instances where you've said something has been completed, though searching shows that there are still outstanding issues. This along with the fact you said you were certain other sources did not mention Meade's other books yet a quick google search was able to find me several does not sit well in your favour. I'm going to keep this open and I very much hope it will be improved to a point where I can pass it, but just so you know I'm going easy on you only because it's your first nomination. I definitely would have failed it by now if it wasn't. Keep in mind the feedback I've provided and try and make sure these issues are sorted out before nominating articles in the future. :) Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy to pass this now. Congrats. Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

FA Plans

I do have a plan to one day nominate this article for FA status, once I think it meets the criteria. Anything I can do in the article to help make sure that it meets all the criteria for FA status? I’ve read through the criteria and it does discuss what needs to be done in order to be a FA status article. Anything I can do to help? —LovelyGirl7 talk 22:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC) LovelyGirl7 talk 22:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you missed my reply to this question, LovelyGirl7 but in any case, it's here: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Jim Bakker. Happy editing! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That conversation has now been archived to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_750#Jim_Bakker. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde

All this proves is what OW once said; "If there is one thing worse than being talked about it's not being talked about." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.183.86 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)