Talk:Jona Lendering

"Non-notable"

And all those Pokemon cards, episodes of obscure sci-fi shows, unsuccessful politicians (who campaigned but didn't win seats), porn movies, minor villages in Canada, are more notable? Mr. Lendering is an authority on ancient Babylon and Persia, his books on Antiquity at least (I can't answer to the ones on management, which I believe were his earliest) are mainstream and refereed by reputable publishers, with at least one translated into foreign languages; and he's notable enough to be interviewed from time to time. Bill 11:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I was one of his students. He has a very negative image now under Iranians. I do not know what to do. On onehand I have to respect my old professor and on the other I cannot agree with every thing what he says. But this is another issue and notability is yet another one.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, maybe the website is notable but WP:notability has stringent requirements. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not very notable person. He is only a blogger and archivist. He does not meet wp:notability.--Larno (talk) 06:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dbachmann that this article does not meet with the criteria of notability. A merger with his website sounds logical, but also I do not see any reason why his website should have an article while there are so many websites which do not. Therefore a merger or a complete deletion is at its place.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Move of the Lendering article

I am surprised about the move of the Lendering article. Although there was a "merge" tag on the article, I cannot find any discussion here about this. Lendering clearly satisfies the WP:Notability criteria: he has published several books and most (or all) have been reviewed in reliable independent sources (several books were reviewed in multiple national Dutch newspapers). I think that this ill-advised move should be reverted. --Crusio (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have always found myself to agree with DAB on any move he makes on any article. Publishing a few books does not satisfy WP:Notability. For example, an IEEE fellow (one of the notability guidelines) is a lifetime achievement and one needs to publish ground-breaking papers/books to achieve such a distinction. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Publishing books that subsequently get significant coverage in national newspapers satisfies, for example, WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Significant Coverage is a vague term, but that would be for example Briant's Acheamenid book which is referenced by many other books. I do not think Lendering makes any of the "Criteria" mentioned in WP:ACADEMIC you referenced. Also there are books that get coverage in Persian or other languages, but again does not mean they meet WP:Notability. Also the first line says: "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions,". Lendering is an archivist and not a Professor. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right about WP:PROF. However, multiple reviews of his books seem to satisfy the third criterion of WP:CREATIVE. From my experiences with AfD, the Lendering article would probably survive easily. --Crusio (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Lendering has only published a few books by non peer reviewed Dutch publishers. He has only publications in Dutch a language spoken by 16 Million people in Holland and some 6 or 7 Million in belgium. Guess how much of them are academics and interested in antiquity? Yes just a few. Very very few. It is obvious that his books are not well read and the only fact that he gets cited is because he says controversial things. Just an example, go and claim that there is no such an animal as dogs. And see how many citations you get. His tactics are obvious. Saying controversial things and if someone responds, he attacks them personally. This way he gets publicity.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crusio. Lendering's books have been widely reviewed in the Dutch media (see this list). That makes him a notable popular author, regardless of his academic standing or the quality of his work. If an English-language writer had received similar attention, I don't think the question of notability would ever have arisen. It's possible that Livius Onderwijs should also have an article, but the current article doesn't cite any sources primarily about the school and it remains to be demonstrated that these exist. EALacey (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, Holland is a small country. No one, except his friends, is really interested in his work. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin, obviously you don't know much about "Holland" (the country is actually called The Netherlands, you know). First of all, a language area of 20-25 million is not really that small, even if that were important (it isn't, a writer important in Estonian, Samoan, or Maltese still is notable for Wikipedia, of course). Second, Lendering's books are published mostly by Athenaeum (Amsterdam) and Ambo, two very respected Dutch publishers. Third, the reviews of his works are published in some of the most notable Dutch newspapers, such as NRC Handelsblad. Unless you think that all "16 million" Dutch are his friends, obviously many people are interested in his works. Finally, if you ever visit the Netherlands, you'll notice that the country (despite some idiot politicians one can find anywhere) is really rather broad minded and not as parochial (in the sense of not knowing anything from outside their own borders) as many larger countries such as France, Germany, the US, and probably also larger countries elsewhere such as China and Iran). Broad interest in Lendering's books in the Netherlands cannot be brushed away with "Holland is a small country" (and I have to add that as a born Dutchman, I find this denigrating attitude rather insulting; I don't know what nationality you are, but I would never summarily dismiss another people in that way). --Crusio (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about Holland? hmmm well I said that I was Lendering's student. It is this broadminded society that made Pim Fortuyn's xenophobic part the second largest even after his death. Tolerance is just a stereotype in Holland. I can assure you that not many people read Lendering's work about Alexander the Great etc... He will make a bestseller in Holland if he writes a tiny book about how bad are Moroccans, Turks or any other Muslim minority in Holland, but not about the antiquity. Do you know how one gets published by Atheaneum? yes pay per copy of printed book!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

just a quick note. As I said I live in Eindhoven. It is not that there evey one knows Kamran. But that city is at least in the Netherlands. In the province of Noord Brabant.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As you live in The Netherlands, you should know better than imitate Fortuyn and the "heirs" of his "gedachtengoed" and not treat a whole people on the basis of a small portion (yes, Fortuyn's party became second largest, but in the political system of the Netherlands that still is only 17%). When I said "broadminded", I clearly didn't mean to say that every Dutchman is a wonderful openminded person. I have lived in several countries and one can find idiots and bigots anywhere. But I'd rather say that I find wonderful people everywhere, because that is true, too. Anyway, we're diverging, because the merits or lack thereof of the Netherlands is not really the subject of this talk page and my reaction was only caused by your snide remark about "Holland". For a "Brababnder", you should know better! As for Athenaeum, this is the first time that I see it said that they publish books for payment by the author (i.e., that they would be a vanity press). I'd really like to see a source for that. And perhaps you could also explain what currency writers like Livius, Diderot, Stendhal, and Seneca (to mention only a few) used to get their works published? --Crusio (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

dear Crusio, I never said that all Dutch are the same. In fact this is me who says that Dutch are diverse and therefore we should dismiss the myth of Nederlandse Tolerantie. As for the publishers in Holland: they take money rather than give royalties to the author. At best the author can have the profit of the sold books for himself. The academic publishers= those of the university, need first a letter or something, some kind of recommandation from a senior scholar that the book is of a certain level. In practice this means that they very often publish only dissertationsfrom their own university or books by their own scholars which are recommanded by more people. Even these academic publishers want money. But the non-university publishers are different. They ask more money, and they publish it easily and rapidly. At leas as long as it is in Dutch. (because believe it or not a Dutch book costs 4 times more than an English book!) Well the best way to find it out is to offer them a manuscript to publish--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at WP:Creative, none of the criterion are satisfied. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.", "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.".. We have about 4000-5000 or more universities in the world and each of them probably have at least 200 factulary. 200*5000=1000000, so we should have 1 million articles on anyone that has published a book or journal.

Nobody ever said that Lendering is notable because he published a few books. It's the fact that those books were widely reviewed in the Dutch press that make him notable. --Crusio (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay we tried WP:Prof and obviously it did not make it since the person is not academic/professor. Now please look at WP:CREATIVE, it says nothing about press. Please read the list of creative criterion. I do not see any that would even come close to what Lendering has published. I have a Ph.D. and have written journal articles in my own field that have been cited by other authors int he same field. This is of course a technical field but I think Wikipedia requires much more than that and not every person with a Ph.D. ashould get an article because they have a book or journal articles. Else Wikipedia could easily have at least a million new entries. Plus having Press like VOA, BBC, History channel does not mean much for notability as I recall, assuming there is a source that shows it is widely received by the press and not an OR. Else another name that was redirected comes up a lot in the Persian press: [1]. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The creative professionals guideline allows the following as evidence of notability: "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Lendering's website lists 20 periodicals that reviewed Alexander de Grote, and at least three of his other books probably also meet this criterion. I've never seen this guideline interpreted in AFD discussions as requiring tertiary sources that discuss an author's reception by reviewers. EALacey (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not see such a sentence and you are tying different words from different sentences to make that sentence. If a book has been reviewed (positively or negatively), then there is such a thing as WP:BOOK which is the title of the book rather than the author but the author's name can be directed to it. Also ", a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" is neither in this case in my opinion. Hundreds of thousands of books are reviewed by various places, but one can not mention every single author. So just having a book that has been reviewed or commented upon is not sufficient to make it significant. I think the key word is significant in terms of the field. Has it changed the direction of the field since it was published for example? Collecting some Eastern Sources on Alexander the Great is not really significant since these sources have existed and actually many of them important Eastern Sources were ignored in the book due to the author's lack of understanding the primary languages. Also I looked at the review sites, and virtually all reviews except 1 or 2 were in Dutch which shows that the book is not significant enough to have made a general impact in the primary language of scholarship. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My quotation was entirely from a single sentence and the parts I elided were not relevant. I think that the reviews of Lendering's work demonstrate notability within the Netherlands, which is perfectly sufficient for an article here; we have many articles on people notable only within Australia, which has a population not much larger. The English Wikipedia does have a clear systematic bias against the non-English-speaking world, but that's generally regarded as a problem. Finally, I can't see a problem with having articles about other comparably notable authors, since we aren't using paper. I suggest moving this article back to Jona Lendering and taking it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where it can receive independent comment. EALacey (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this proposal. --Crusio (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not necessarily opposed to having an article dedicated to Lendering. It would just have to formally establish the subject satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Fwiiw, other wikis have

• fr:Jona Lendering, but no Livius.org
• de:Livius.org, but no Jona Lendering
• nl:Livius.org and nl:Jona Lendering

it stands to reason that nl-wiki would have the most detailed coverage on this. Following fr: and de:, it would seem appropriate to keep one article, either at Jona Lendering or at Livius Onderwijs/Livius.org. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Publishing a book which has been reviewed in the Dutch press does not meet WP:CREATIVE. So if I am correct, if a book has been reviewed by several places (and I am not sure how many of them are scholars the majority look like normal popular newspapers in Dutch), then the author deserves an article? Where does it say that? The book has not made a serious or significant impact (say Harry Potter or Briant's book on Achaemenids) in general. Also there is a difference between academic reviews and normal newspaper reviews. The English reviewer calls it mainly a general public book. So publishing a general book is not sufficient under WP:CREATIVE to have an article. There seems to be a double standard with regards to another article.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• (unindent) "deserves an article", etc. It looks like you think that having an article in WP is an honor. Not necessarily. One does'nt need to be "good" or "excellent" for a WP article, one only needs to be notable (and that can be because one is "bad" or "evil"). Some scientists are so bad that they become notable. Also, very few academic books actually get reviewed in "normal popular newspapers". In addition, any respectable newspaper will have an academic book reviewed by a specialist, not just a layman or a random journalist as you seem to assume. WP relies on reliable, third party sources. Multiple book reviews in multiple newspapers is something that happens to only very few books and shows notability. But you don't have to take my word for it, take this to AfD and see what others say. --Crusio (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Again then the article should be about the book, not the person. Since the book has gotten multiple reviews. But the book itself does not satisfy WP:CREATIVE since it has done nothing significant by collecting a bunch of eastern sources on Alexander which already had exist and indeed the book is not comprehensive. The only English review called it a "general book". So it has not have had a significant impact(like say the Harry Potter book) for the author to have his own article. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming very tiresome. My final contribution to this discussion: Lendering has published multiple books that each have received multiple reviews in reliable third-party sources. Hence, Lendering fulfils the WP criteria for a notable author. --Crusio (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

deletion

I put a deletion tag on this page. There are so many web sites, and It is not clear to me why Lendering's website is more notable than 1000s of other web sites. In addition the Author himself is not notable. In the talk Kaveh farrokh, was said that Organization of Culture Heritage of Iran, or even VOA or BBC are not notable. I wonder how it could be that NRC Handelsblad a Dutch newspaper, which is only read in the Netherlands, or something like Ad Valvas, a students' new letter in the Netherland sre. This is exactly a case of double standard. I am sorry for his army of supporters, but neither Lendering himself, nor his website are notable.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Abouth Atheneum Books: You should not confuse the English language Atheneum Books AKA Simon & Schuster but the Dutch one http://www.klassieken.nl/boekboek/show/id=114906 --Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

please consult WP:AFD on how to properly submit an article for deletion. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder when this Lendering stops his bullying of Iranians. It is very clear that he either hates Iranians or at least has a bias towards everything Iranian. Or at least he is an anti-Social person. (I as a former student of him clearly recognize this character of him). Here http://onzemaninteheran.com/?p=549 ,he says that the Iranian art is not awsome, and then he says the pictures from Iran are more beautiful than it is in the reality. Imagine how immature and hatful is it to say such a thing, when one is discussing the Iranian art. If he is an archeologist, which he is not, he should discuss the artifacts. Things such as they are not awsome and Iran is not a beutiful country, mean only that he has grudges against Iranians. not very professional. Further he goes on and defends the French possession of Iranian artifacts and blame it on a dead Shah. It seems that he has now a scapegoat to blame everything on him. It is very low class and shamefull what he is doing. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

wow, if I say you are "not awesome" does that translate into a "hateful grudge"?

so, you admit to being personally acquainted with Lendering, and to have a personal dislike of his character. This simply means you should stand down per WP:COI.

feel free to still put this article on afd, but I would recommend you keep your personal vendetta out of this and build a case purely on WP:BIO. --dab (𒁳) 15:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

calling something awsome or ugly are just expressions of one's taste and is not very professional. If he is an archeologist (which he is not) he should discuss the artifacts, without making a personal subjective judgement about them. the first thing one learns at a Dutch university is that never give a "waardeoordeel"but discuss the things without bias. lendering is entitled to his opinion, but his wordings clearly expresses his bias against Iranian AND his lack of professionalism--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin, I just read the review that you linked to above. As far as I can see, Lendering laments that the exposition does not do Iran justice. He laments that some wonderful cultural artifacts (like Cyrus' grave) have suffered from apparently not well-carried out previous restauration attempts. He also laments the way the exposition is organized (showing objects not in chronological order). Nowhere do I see the disdain and scorn that you are referring to. In fact, I can only read here the opinion of someone who deeply admires the cultures that he is studying. I think you misread and should try reading it again. --Crusio (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he does not fit WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROF. So the book has been reviewed but there is no policy in Wikipedia stating that writing a general book that has been reviewed deserves an article for the author. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

all referrenes here should be deleted if.

Chris O wrote:

  rm Robert Gibbs - who is this person and why is his view of any significance?) (undo) 
and deleted  this text from the artcile "Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War 

- The book was recommended to the World Affairs International Society of Stanford University by one Robert Gibbs. Aplyying the same formula means that we should delete all referrences from this page (Livius onderwisj). If stanford is not notable, then Jakarta post isn't either. BY the way who is Stronk, Jan P and and why is his view of any significance?) By the way why is an aryical in Euroepan neurology is relevant? ^ Valmantas Budrys (July 2005). "Neurological Eponyms Derived from Literature and Visual Art". European Neurology 53: 171–178. doi:10.1159/000086150. I know that some people here are having double standards, but I ask them to be fair and delete these ferrences themselves, or restore the referrences in the other article.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jan P. Stronk is an ancient historian at the University of Amsterdam, reviewing Lendering's book for an academic journal, and therefore exactly the sort of person whose views are relevant. As for the media citations of Lendering's website, I didn't intend to represent these as authoritative or as conferring notability, but it's potentially interesting to the reader of this article that the website has been cited as a source in print publications. EALacey (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

J.P. Stronk is a Dutch historian, with a modest academic record. Much better than Lendering, but still nothing compared to Frye! It is obvious that Farrokh has better academic support than Lendering. It was not very wise of Lendering to beging the smear campaign, because he started a war that he is going to lose, ultimately!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Then the article should be about the book, not the person. Since the book has gotten multiple reviews. But the book itself does not satisfy WP:CREATIVE since it has done nothing significant by collecting a list of eastern sources on Alexander which already had exist and indeed the book is not comprehensive. The only English review called it a "general book". So it has not have had a significant impact(like say the Harry Potter book) for the author to have his own article. So I agree, the book satisfies WP:BOOK because of the reviews, but this does not mean the author who is not significant should have an Encyclopedic Entry. Let me ask you this, suppose I have written an academic engineering book/paper and it was reviewed by third parties, is that enough to get an article under my name? Afterall journal articles are always 3rd party reviewed. So the person is not significant (I mean he did not win the noble prize or is well known) but the book possibly does satisfy WP:BOOK which can deserve it's own article. Actually I believe the page should be moved to the book and the livus be mentioned on the site with a small biography of the author of the book in the same book article.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

References

References

put back the notability tag

this article was discussed and most people agreed that he was not a notable person. So I put the notability tag again. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• This article is about the school, not the person. Given that highschools are considered autoimatically notable, I don't think there is much doubt that this history school is notable. I'll remove the tag. --Crusio (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

well I see I should have posted this on the article on himself. By the way not all High schools are notable. There are so many High schools all around the world and in the Netherlands. the centers of higher education could be notable, if they are recognized by the ministry. But his self-made school is not.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the highschools thing, but that is common practice now on WP and seems to be the consensus of people that work on articles about schools: highschools are automatically considered notable, no matter where they are, recognized or not. --Crusio (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Non-notable"

And all those Pokemon cards, episodes of obscure sci-fi shows, unsuccessful politicians (who campaigned but didn't win seats), porn movies, minor villages in Canada, are more notable? Mr. Lendering is an authority on ancient Babylon and Persia, his books on Antiquity at least (I can't answer to the ones on management, which I believe were his earliest) are mainstream and refereed by reputable publishers, with at least one translated into foreign languages; and he's notable enough to be interviewed from time to time. Bill 11:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I was one of his students. He has a very negative image now under Iranians. I do not know what to do. On onehand I have to respect my old professor and on the other I cannot agree with every thing what he says. But this is another issue and notability is yet another one.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, maybe the website is notable but WP:notability has stringent requirements. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not very notable person. He is only a blogger and archivist. He does not meet wp:notability.--Larno (talk) 06:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dbachmann that this article does not meet with the criteria of notability. A merger with his website sounds logical, but also I do not see any reason why his website should have an article while there are so many websites which do not. Therefore a merger or a complete deletion is at its place.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Move of the Lendering article

I am surprised about the move of the Lendering article. Although there was a "merge" tag on the article, I cannot find any discussion here about this. Lendering clearly satisfies the WP:Notability criteria: he has published several books and most (or all) have been reviewed in reliable independent sources (several books were reviewed in multiple national Dutch newspapers). I think that this ill-advised move should be reverted. --Crusio (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have always found myself to agree with DAB on any move he makes on any article. Publishing a few books does not satisfy WP:Notability. For example, an IEEE fellow (one of the notability guidelines) is a lifetime achievement and one needs to publish ground-breaking papers/books to achieve such a distinction. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Publishing books that subsequently get significant coverage in national newspapers satisfies, for example, WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Significant Coverage is a vague term, but that would be for example Briant's Acheamenid book which is referenced by many other books. I do not think Lendering makes any of the "Criteria" mentioned in WP:ACADEMIC you referenced. Also there are books that get coverage in Persian or other languages, but again does not mean they meet WP:Notability. Also the first line says: "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions,". Lendering is an archivist and not a Professor. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right about WP:PROF. However, multiple reviews of his books seem to satisfy the third criterion of WP:CREATIVE. From my experiences with AfD, the Lendering article would probably survive easily. --Crusio (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Lendering has only published a few books by non peer reviewed Dutch publishers. He has only publications in Dutch a language spoken by 16 Million people in Holland and some 6 or 7 Million in belgium. Guess how much of them are academics and interested in antiquity? Yes just a few. Very very few. It is obvious that his books are not well read and the only fact that he gets cited is because he says controversial things. Just an example, go and claim that there is no such an animal as dogs. And see how many citations you get. His tactics are obvious. Saying controversial things and if someone responds, he attacks them personally. This way he gets publicity.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crusio. Lendering's books have been widely reviewed in the Dutch media (see this list). That makes him a notable popular author, regardless of his academic standing or the quality of his work. If an English-language writer had received similar attention, I don't think the question of notability would ever have arisen. It's possible that Livius Onderwijs should also have an article, but the current article doesn't cite any sources primarily about the school and it remains to be demonstrated that these exist. EALacey (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, Holland is a small country. No one, except his friends, is really interested in his work. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin, obviously you don't know much about "Holland" (the country is actually called The Netherlands, you know). First of all, a language area of 20-25 million is not really that small, even if that were important (it isn't, a writer important in Estonian, Samoan, or Maltese still is notable for Wikipedia, of course). Second, Lendering's books are published mostly by Athenaeum (Amsterdam) and Ambo, two very respected Dutch publishers. Third, the reviews of his works are published in some of the most notable Dutch newspapers, such as NRC Handelsblad. Unless you think that all "16 million" Dutch are his friends, obviously many people are interested in his works. Finally, if you ever visit the Netherlands, you'll notice that the country (despite some idiot politicians one can find anywhere) is really rather broad minded and not as parochial (in the sense of not knowing anything from outside their own borders) as many larger countries such as France, Germany, the US, and probably also larger countries elsewhere such as China and Iran). Broad interest in Lendering's books in the Netherlands cannot be brushed away with "Holland is a small country" (and I have to add that as a born Dutchman, I find this denigrating attitude rather insulting; I don't know what nationality you are, but I would never summarily dismiss another people in that way). --Crusio (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about Holland? hmmm well I said that I was Lendering's student. It is this broadminded society that made Pim Fortuyn's xenophobic part the second largest even after his death. Tolerance is just a stereotype in Holland. I can assure you that not many people read Lendering's work about Alexander the Great etc... He will make a bestseller in Holland if he writes a tiny book about how bad are Moroccans, Turks or any other Muslim minority in Holland, but not about the antiquity. Do you know how one gets published by Atheaneum? yes pay per copy of printed book!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

just a quick note. As I said I live in Eindhoven. It is not that there evey one knows Kamran. But that city is at least in the Netherlands. In the province of Noord Brabant.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As you live in The Netherlands, you should know better than imitate Fortuyn and the "heirs" of his "gedachtengoed" and not treat a whole people on the basis of a small portion (yes, Fortuyn's party became second largest, but in the political system of the Netherlands that still is only 17%). When I said "broadminded", I clearly didn't mean to say that every Dutchman is a wonderful openminded person. I have lived in several countries and one can find idiots and bigots anywhere. But I'd rather say that I find wonderful people everywhere, because that is true, too. Anyway, we're diverging, because the merits or lack thereof of the Netherlands is not really the subject of this talk page and my reaction was only caused by your snide remark about "Holland". For a "Brababnder", you should know better! As for Athenaeum, this is the first time that I see it said that they publish books for payment by the author (i.e., that they would be a vanity press). I'd really like to see a source for that. And perhaps you could also explain what currency writers like Livius, Diderot, Stendhal, and Seneca (to mention only a few) used to get their works published? --Crusio (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

dear Crusio, I never said that all Dutch are the same. In fact this is me who says that Dutch are diverse and therefore we should dismiss the myth of Nederlandse Tolerantie. As for the publishers in Holland: they take money rather than give royalties to the author. At best the author can have the profit of the sold books for himself. The academic publishers= those of the university, need first a letter or something, some kind of recommandation from a senior scholar that the book is of a certain level. In practice this means that they very often publish only dissertationsfrom their own university or books by their own scholars which are recommanded by more people. Even these academic publishers want money. But the non-university publishers are different. They ask more money, and they publish it easily and rapidly. At leas as long as it is in Dutch. (because believe it or not a Dutch book costs 4 times more than an English book!) Well the best way to find it out is to offer them a manuscript to publish--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at WP:Creative, none of the criterion are satisfied. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.", "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.".. We have about 4000-5000 or more universities in the world and each of them probably have at least 200 factulary. 200*5000=1000000, so we should have 1 million articles on anyone that has published a book or journal.

Nobody ever said that Lendering is notable because he published a few books. It's the fact that those books were widely reviewed in the Dutch press that make him notable. --Crusio (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay we tried WP:Prof and obviously it did not make it since the person is not academic/professor. Now please look at WP:CREATIVE, it says nothing about press. Please read the list of creative criterion. I do not see any that would even come close to what Lendering has published. I have a Ph.D. and have written journal articles in my own field that have been cited by other authors int he same field. This is of course a technical field but I think Wikipedia requires much more than that and not every person with a Ph.D. ashould get an article because they have a book or journal articles. Else Wikipedia could easily have at least a million new entries. Plus having Press like VOA, BBC, History channel does not mean much for notability as I recall, assuming there is a source that shows it is widely received by the press and not an OR. Else another name that was redirected comes up a lot in the Persian press: [2]. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The creative professionals guideline allows the following as evidence of notability: "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Lendering's website lists 20 periodicals that reviewed Alexander de Grote, and at least three of his other books probably also meet this criterion. I've never seen this guideline interpreted in AFD discussions as requiring tertiary sources that discuss an author's reception by reviewers. EALacey (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not see such a sentence and you are tying different words from different sentences to make that sentence. If a book has been reviewed (positively or negatively), then there is such a thing as WP:BOOK which is the title of the book rather than the author but the author's name can be directed to it. Also ", a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" is neither in this case in my opinion. Hundreds of thousands of books are reviewed by various places, but one can not mention every single author. So just having a book that has been reviewed or commented upon is not sufficient to make it significant. I think the key word is significant in terms of the field. Has it changed the direction of the field since it was published for example? Collecting some Eastern Sources on Alexander the Great is not really significant since these sources have existed and actually many of them important Eastern Sources were ignored in the book due to the author's lack of understanding the primary languages. Also I looked at the review sites, and virtually all reviews except 1 or 2 were in Dutch which shows that the book is not significant enough to have made a general impact in the primary language of scholarship. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My quotation was entirely from a single sentence and the parts I elided were not relevant. I think that the reviews of Lendering's work demonstrate notability within the Netherlands, which is perfectly sufficient for an article here; we have many articles on people notable only within Australia, which has a population not much larger. The English Wikipedia does have a clear systematic bias against the non-English-speaking world, but that's generally regarded as a problem. Finally, I can't see a problem with having articles about other comparably notable authors, since we aren't using paper. I suggest moving this article back to Jona Lendering and taking it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where it can receive independent comment. EALacey (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this proposal. --Crusio (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not necessarily opposed to having an article dedicated to Lendering. It would just have to formally establish the subject satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Fwiiw, other wikis have

• fr:Jona Lendering, but no Livius.org
• de:Livius.org, but no Jona Lendering
• nl:Livius.org and nl:Jona Lendering

it stands to reason that nl-wiki would have the most detailed coverage on this. Following fr: and de:, it would seem appropriate to keep one article, either at Jona Lendering or at Livius Onderwijs/Livius.org. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Publishing a book which has been reviewed in the Dutch press does not meet WP:CREATIVE. So if I am correct, if a book has been reviewed by several places (and I am not sure how many of them are scholars the majority look like normal popular newspapers in Dutch), then the author deserves an article? Where does it say that? The book has not made a serious or significant impact (say Harry Potter or Briant's book on Achaemenids) in general. Also there is a difference between academic reviews and normal newspaper reviews. The English reviewer calls it mainly a general public book. So publishing a general book is not sufficient under WP:CREATIVE to have an article. There seems to be a double standard with regards to another article.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• (unindent) "deserves an article", etc. It looks like you think that having an article in WP is an honor. Not necessarily. One does'nt need to be "good" or "excellent" for a WP article, one only needs to be notable (and that can be because one is "bad" or "evil"). Some scientists are so bad that they become notable. Also, very few academic books actually get reviewed in "normal popular newspapers". In addition, any respectable newspaper will have an academic book reviewed by a specialist, not just a layman or a random journalist as you seem to assume. WP relies on reliable, third party sources. Multiple book reviews in multiple newspapers is something that happens to only very few books and shows notability. But you don't have to take my word for it, take this to AfD and see what others say. --Crusio (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Again then the article should be about the book, not the person. Since the book has gotten multiple reviews. But the book itself does not satisfy WP:CREATIVE since it has done nothing significant by collecting a bunch of eastern sources on Alexander which already had exist and indeed the book is not comprehensive. The only English review called it a "general book". So it has not have had a significant impact(like say the Harry Potter book) for the author to have his own article. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming very tiresome. My final contribution to this discussion: Lendering has published multiple books that each have received multiple reviews in reliable third-party sources. Hence, Lendering fulfils the WP criteria for a notable author. --Crusio (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

deletion

I put a deletion tag on this page. There are so many web sites, and It is not clear to me why Lendering's website is more notable than 1000s of other web sites. In addition the Author himself is not notable. In the talk Kaveh farrokh, was said that Organization of Culture Heritage of Iran, or even VOA or BBC are not notable. I wonder how it could be that NRC Handelsblad a Dutch newspaper, which is only read in the Netherlands, or something like Ad Valvas, a students' new letter in the Netherland sre. This is exactly a case of double standard. I am sorry for his army of supporters, but neither Lendering himself, nor his website are notable.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Abouth Atheneum Books: You should not confuse the English language Atheneum Books AKA Simon & Schuster but the Dutch one http://www.klassieken.nl/boekboek/show/id=114906 --Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

please consult WP:AFD on how to properly submit an article for deletion. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder when this Lendering stops his bullying of Iranians. It is very clear that he either hates Iranians or at least has a bias towards everything Iranian. Or at least he is an anti-Social person. (I as a former student of him clearly recognize this character of him). Here http://onzemaninteheran.com/?p=549 ,he says that the Iranian art is not awsome, and then he says the pictures from Iran are more beautiful than it is in the reality. Imagine how immature and hatful is it to say such a thing, when one is discussing the Iranian art. If he is an archeologist, which he is not, he should discuss the artifacts. Things such as they are not awsome and Iran is not a beutiful country, mean only that he has grudges against Iranians. not very professional. Further he goes on and defends the French possession of Iranian artifacts and blame it on a dead Shah. It seems that he has now a scapegoat to blame everything on him. It is very low class and shamefull what he is doing. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

wow, if I say you are "not awesome" does that translate into a "hateful grudge"?

so, you admit to being personally acquainted with Lendering, and to have a personal dislike of his character. This simply means you should stand down per WP:COI.

feel free to still put this article on afd, but I would recommend you keep your personal vendetta out of this and build a case purely on WP:BIO. --dab (𒁳) 15:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

calling something awsome or ugly are just expressions of one's taste and is not very professional. If he is an archeologist (which he is not) he should discuss the artifacts, without making a personal subjective judgement about them. the first thing one learns at a Dutch university is that never give a "waardeoordeel"but discuss the things without bias. lendering is entitled to his opinion, but his wordings clearly expresses his bias against Iranian AND his lack of professionalism--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin, I just read the review that you linked to above. As far as I can see, Lendering laments that the exposition does not do Iran justice. He laments that some wonderful cultural artifacts (like Cyrus' grave) have suffered from apparently not well-carried out previous restauration attempts. He also laments the way the exposition is organized (showing objects not in chronological order). Nowhere do I see the disdain and scorn that you are referring to. In fact, I can only read here the opinion of someone who deeply admires the cultures that he is studying. I think you misread and should try reading it again. --Crusio (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he does not fit WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROF. So the book has been reviewed but there is no policy in Wikipedia stating that writing a general book that has been reviewed deserves an article for the author. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

all referrenes here should be deleted if.

Chris O wrote:

  rm Robert Gibbs - who is this person and why is his view of any significance?) (undo) 
and deleted  this text from the artcile "Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War 

- The book was recommended to the World Affairs International Society of Stanford University by one Robert Gibbs. Aplyying the same formula means that we should delete all referrences from this page (Livius onderwisj). If stanford is not notable, then Jakarta post isn't either. BY the way who is Stronk, Jan P and and why is his view of any significance?) By the way why is an aryical in Euroepan neurology is relevant? ^ Valmantas Budrys (July 2005). "Neurological Eponyms Derived from Literature and Visual Art". European Neurology 53: 171–178. doi:10.1159/000086150. I know that some people here are having double standards, but I ask them to be fair and delete these ferrences themselves, or restore the referrences in the other article.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jan P. Stronk is an ancient historian at the University of Amsterdam, reviewing Lendering's book for an academic journal, and therefore exactly the sort of person whose views are relevant. As for the media citations of Lendering's website, I didn't intend to represent these as authoritative or as conferring notability, but it's potentially interesting to the reader of this article that the website has been cited as a source in print publications. EALacey (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

J.P. Stronk is a Dutch historian, with a modest academic record. Much better than Lendering, but still nothing compared to Frye! It is obvious that Farrokh has better academic support than Lendering. It was not very wise of Lendering to beging the smear campaign, because he started a war that he is going to lose, ultimately!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Then the article should be about the book, not the person. Since the book has gotten multiple reviews. But the book itself does not satisfy WP:CREATIVE since it has done nothing significant by collecting a list of eastern sources on Alexander which already had exist and indeed the book is not comprehensive. The only English review called it a "general book". So it has not have had a significant impact(like say the Harry Potter book) for the author to have his own article. So I agree, the book satisfies WP:BOOK because of the reviews, but this does not mean the author who is not significant should have an Encyclopedic Entry. Let me ask you this, suppose I have written an academic engineering book/paper and it was reviewed by third parties, is that enough to get an article under my name? Afterall journal articles are always 3rd party reviewed. So the person is not significant (I mean he did not win the noble prize or is well known) but the book possibly does satisfy WP:BOOK which can deserve it's own article. Actually I believe the page should be moved to the book and the livus be mentioned on the site with a small biography of the author of the book in the same book article.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

References

References

put back the notability tag

this article was discussed and most people agreed that he was not a notable person. So I put the notability tag again. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• This article is about the school, not the person. Given that highschools are considered autoimatically notable, I don't think there is much doubt that this history school is notable. I'll remove the tag. --Crusio (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

well I see I should have posted this on the article on himself. By the way not all High schools are notable. There are so many High schools all around the world and in the Netherlands. the centers of higher education could be notable, if they are recognized by the ministry. But his self-made school is not.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the highschools thing, but that is common practice now on WP and seems to be the consensus of people that work on articles about schools: highschools are automatically considered notable, no matter where they are, recognized or not. --Crusio (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Double Standard

I am not sure how this person makes WP:notability. If it is media, then BBC, Voice of America and History channel are bigger. If it is one book, then it has not been endorsed by giants like Richard Frye and at most, there should be an article about the book. That is okay, because I am not even going to touch the recent articles with this issue anymore but I just had to mention this point.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

um, yes? this is why it is tagged with {{notability}}? What does Richard Frye have to do with anything? If you feel it should just be deleted, nobody is stopping you from taking it to AfD. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the Lendering's online army scream that Richard's Frye compliment's to Farrokh is not important, while Jakarta post of the Dutch guy's reiew of lendering is. What a funny world.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And here Dab is playing dumb again, and doing a perfectly convincing job at it, to boot. No, of course, the preface by Professor Rcihard Nelson Frye doesn't mean anything. It's obviously not a nod of acceptance or approval by an individual who has been praised even by the eminent linguist Dekhoda, a wee while ago, to a book written by a person whom you have called an "Iranian nationalist".

"But I am Swiss, and I have provided my real name! I'm as neutral as yoghurt! I am an administrator and I know what NPOV is!"

Funny world it is indeed. Fair enough that Kaveh Farrokh had a laughable fanboy-like Wikipedia entry which was aching to be removed (It's not a huge loss, I mean if someone made a Wikipedia article about me, it'd be worth absolutely peanuts to me), but what is this article doing here? I don't think Jona Lendering is going to lose any sleep about it, I mean over at Roman Army Talk he does with a degree of humour point out how scholars are reputation-sensitive and are more than willing to spur themselves for publicity through means of sock-puppetry.

Delete it. Make an article on Livius.org instead. You don't have to like Jona Lendering, to acknowledge that it is a fine and popularly referred website. --The Persian Cataphract (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

from the AfD, I must say it appears painfully obvious that the only voices calling for deletion come from accounts named "Persian Cataphract", "Darius the Great", "Hail Iran" or similar. In other words, the wish to delete this article is motivated by a patriotic desire for revenge for Lendering's negative review of Farrokh's book. Needless to say, this isn't an acceptable reasoning, and all editors exhibiting an in-your-face patriotism in their usernames and on their userpages should pause to reflect if this is really how they want their faction to come across. --dab (𒁳) 10:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh, here's our Swiss neutralist! And what does this administrator bring to the table this time? Let's see, accusations of parroting, arbitrary classification of users based upon pen-name preferences, straw-men, ignoratio elenchi, and finally begging the question through the same fallacious reasoning as previously. We call that petitio principii, don't we? Apparently nothing will change his mind until I change my pen-name to something like John Doe. How does he know that I am not this Russian dude who likes Iranian history and culture? Oh, that's right, he doesn't. He probably didn't check my IP-address to see that I'm based in Sweden and could in fact be a Swede. Whoops... Sounds like our neutralist is using a subtle profiling method to his convenience.

Like I stated before, it doesn't matter if I'm a Nazi, Communist, Liberal or even a hippie. It doesn't matter if I do drugs, or if I look even remotely like a reptile. It doesn't matter if I'm even an obese Tongan kid. It has no bearing on content or the essentials of an argument, and anything else you might conjure to the favour of some imagined affiliation. This is aptly called speculation.

Now, I will only say two things. First one is a rehearsal of my previous suggestion: Livius.org is visited by thousands of people daily. Along with a number of other scholar-related websites, I can't live without checking it by a daily basis. It deserves a Wiki-article, where Jona Lendering is briefly described as the founder and maintainer of an outlet with roots as far back as -96. Yes, sounds like a plan of revenge. The paragon of Pan-Iranic resurgence! The removal of a Wiki-article of Lendering will remove the last great obstacle to a resurgent Achaemenid empire and the reawakening of the terrifying Persian horsemen of doom! Howl! Howl! Our world is forfeit!

Second point, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart: Get laid. Your superior-inferior complex isn't convincing anyone here, whether they be Iranian or not. There is no chance an article of this quality gets to stay. That's the bottom line, irrespective of any perceived reasoning. Either change the article so that it pertains to Livius.org, or stop your incessant whining. Maybe it never occurred to you that by simple observation Jona Lendering has written several Iran-friendly articles and has generally sought to dispel several popular misconceptions on the ancient Iranians. Maybe that's how you make more drama in your life, by arbitrary holier-than-thou attitude.

Idiot. --The Persian Cataphract (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Premature AfD closure

I have asked the editor who performed a premature non-admin closure to re-open the AfD, so that it can run for the full 5 days and everyone interested will have the chance to contribute. --Crusio (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. — neuro^(talk) 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[3]. Not interested in continuing it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Category (Accusations of racism)

Konstock, Please do not edit or undo work without properly citing your reasons for doing so. My addition of the category was cited and sourced. If you have problems with that, then please address accordingly. As it stands, Lendering is the subject of accusations of racism, a fact that is related to the reason why he is even considered notable in the first place! (see above the talk page for the controversy if he is even notable) A good number of BLPs address facts such as the one now being discussed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.13.51 (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Weller, please edit fairly and not lazily. Your previous "undos" seem to be overly sweeping. Lendering, in his own blog, has acknowledged accusations pitted against him. Moreover, the accusations are related to what make him notable. Wikipedia does not use blog as sources, unless the blog is directly related to the information at hand. In this instance, it is to support the fact that there are accusations against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.13.51 (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Konstock, Again I'll say it, please do not edit or undo with properly citing your reasons for doing so. Also, please don't simply undo my edits, please appropriately make the revisions necessary. I've addressed the one concern that you brought up of one of the sources not being appropriate and I replaced it with another, from a university professor (who has PhD, unlike Lendering). You happy now? 75.82.13.51 (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that Lendering talk has been extended a bit too far, dontcha think?ArdeshirBozorg (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed the IP's been blocked for disruptive editing: BLP violations, edit-warring, sockpuppetry - the puppetmaster being ArdeshirBozorg. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Who I see is similarly blocked. We don't use nonsense/malicious/whatever accusations on blogs - not just because they aren't reliable sources, but because this is an encyclopedia and this sort of accusation doesn't rate inclusion until it becomes more singificant, eg reported in mainstream media, etc. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

DougWeller,

It is not a POV issue -- as a factual matter 1,400+ people have signed a petition complaining of Lendering's scholarship; with several seeking to serve him with legal process for his personal attacks. The existence of the petition is a fact - that simple fact has been reported. The legal issues have been left out - because those are for a court to decide and violate Wiki policy.

A tiny petition with claims about making a case doesn't belong in the article. Take it to WP:BLPN (where I will if you continue to replace it). And find a major news source before you do that. Yes, some students don't like what Lendering says about Cyrus the Great and the petition accuses him of being a racist. It's about nationalism. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of racism

I've posted this at WP:BLPN: For several years that has been a web-based campaign against Jona Lendering which occasionally is taken to his Wikipedia article. An IP has recently been adding material about a petition signed by apparently 1400 people accusing Lendering of racism (the IP doesn't link to it, perhaps because the site is blacklisted, but it is at www.gopetition.com/petitions/jona-lendering-anti-iran.html. The last couple of todays I and another editor have reverted it. The IP has also been adding a link to an article[4] in a web based magazine which the IP describes as academic criticism although it isn't in anything resembling an academic publication and the authors are described in the article as "Saam Safavi-Zadeh is from Tabriz, Iran and is pursuing his graduate studies in the study of ancient Iran in France. Anna Djakashvili-Bloehm lives in France with a keen interest in studying ancient Babylon and Persia." A new bit is the addition to a link on Kaveh Farrokh's page (thus self-published) which says "More recently Dr. Kaveh Farrokh,a historian with the University of British Columbia, has prepared a critique that details Jona Lendering’s activities as a purported online historian,". Farrokh is actually a student counsellor at Langara College of Higher Learning[5] and although he has published books on the history of Iran his PhD is related to his professional career as a counsellor. I'd appreciate other views on this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I picked up on the most recent iteration of the questionable additions while doing WP:RCP with Huggle, and didn't check the talk page before went at 'em, but neither of them seemed appropriate here so I reverted them. Kevin (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked (not by me) as a sock of Rjbronn Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rjbronn/Archive is the old case. Dougweller (talk) 12

38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004213351/http://www.uitgeverijathenaeum.nl/web/Artikel/Jona-Lendering-wint-de-OIKOS-publieksprijs-2010.htm to http://www.uitgeverijathenaeum.nl/web/Artikel/Jona-Lendering-wint-de-OIKOS-publieksprijs-2010.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)