Talk:Daniel Tammet

Primary source needed for Pi record

Can anybody find a reliable primary source (an entry in a book of records or a database) that supports the claims of Tammet setting the European record in the recitation of Pi? As far as I know, his claim for the record was eventually rejected. The multiple sources listed in the article only lead to some media coverage after the attempt and before the official revision. The primary source would be very easy to add if it existed and it should be the very first of the references. I suggest that these controversial claims should be removed unless a primary source can be provided. JaRa72 (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Prof Allan Snyder at ANU?

The article gives the impression that Prof Snyder is at the Australian National University (arguably Australia's top university). I believe this is not true. All sources I can find state he's at the University of Sydney. The location of the "Centre for the Mind" is anyone's guess, but the "contact details for its website are near the University of Sydney in NSW while the ANU is in Canberra in the ACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.204.64 (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, he certainly was at the ANU, in the late 1980s. He was (made himself to be) a recognisable figure around campus, riding his bicycle shirtless - deeply tanned bony body, aqualine nose, and wild Einstein-style hair. 115.64.142.162 (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

If he was really fluent and impressive in Icelandic, why doesn't the Icelandic page exist for him? Isn't he famous there? Also, how about mentioning psychic carrer? and memo[1][2]--211.5.25.103 (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Was it fraud[3]? Is this him[4][5]? Really has a medical licence?--211.5.12.49 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[6]--211.5.25.181 (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

People can study a language without being notable in the corresponding culture - Latin, to give an extreme example ! Although IIRC no-one speaks Latin, so that may be a poor example. The principle stands.

"He learned conversational Icelandic in one week"

may never have been there ? Not likely to have become notable.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

He was interviewed in an Icelandic TV.--211.5.14.12 (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Memo[7]--210.196.13.171 (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what this link is supposed to be, it does not work for me and if there is no context I plan to remove it from this talk page shortly. --Fæ (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh!You have joined discussion without reading Foer's book. Daniel Andersson is Mr Tammet, which he himself (reluctantly) adimitted.--210.196.13.171 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What I see is an unexplained commercial link to a yasni.co.uk people search page (overloaded with advertizing) that in theory might provide random search results for the text "Daniel Andersson" but after several attempts at trying to load this page in my browser (the last attempt running for over 10 minutes) displays no content whatsoever. This appears to be giving a false impression of providing a link to information that might justify a claim about a living person. If a meaningful context is not given soon, I shall delete these revisions on the basis that this appears to be the result of anonymous IP accounts using the discussion page to support a BLP violation. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

210.196.13.171's link was broken, but I was able to load it with the link at the top. Here is a direct link to the content.[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill121212 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Foer's book (Moonwalking with Einstein)(p.192). Foer presents evidential document implicating that Tammet worked as pyschic. Tammet admits pretending to possess pyschic ability for financial gain. User 210 sharing Foer's evidence. Go to following links:

• Go to page 192 in Foer's book
• Click on User 210s link and select groups.google.co.uk at top of page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.130.236 (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum. So far listed are apparently illegally reproduced copyrighted text on scribd.com and a link to a google group forum; neither of which am I going to waste time looking at. I propose to remove this thread within 24 hours on the basis that none of this appears to propose anything helpful for article improvement and still appears to be a BLP violation as per my earlier comment. --Fæ (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You had problems opening link. Simply informed you how to open link. Also provided book link (presumed ebook version) which details aforementioned undisputed fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.130.236 (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

With my PC, the link above opens promptly, without any additional click. And mail account Danielius is Mr Tammet. It is a pity someone who does not take time to read relevant books or material forcefully joins discussion.--211.5.11.51 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That link may be replaced by [9]. If you think reading Foer's book is waste of time, please do not touch this article. If you want to join, buy a copy or go to a library.--211.5.11.51 (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Posts on google groups are not a reliable source and should not be used as evidence for anything controversial on a biographic article. Equally, links to search pages are also not a reliable source. I have given no opinion on Foer's book or said whether I have read it or not. I will raise this talk page up for an independent review rather than take direct action. Fæ (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Re. Tammet's work experience as psychic

Tammet's own admission to working as psychic stated in Foer's book (Moonwalking with Einstein, p.192). Note, book previously accepted as reliable source. Think User 211 wants reliably-sourced fact edited in article. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.86.79 (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

All the links were safely copied to the previously mentioned blog. But don't make that a battleground.--211.5.9.108 (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Chapter 10 from “Moonwalking with Einstein” by Joshua Foer (Penguin)

https://simonsingh.net/2016/04/brainman/

Seeing numbers:

The more Daniel and I talked, the more his own statements began to cast doubt on his story. When I asked him on different occasions two weeks apart to describe what the number 9,412 looked like, he gave me two completely different answers. The first time he said, “There’s blue in there because it starts with a nine, and a drifting motion as well, and kind of like a sloping as well.” Two weeks later, he said after a long pause, “It’s a spotty number. There’s spots and curves as well. It’s actually a very complex number.”

After a cup of coffee and some pleasant chitchat about his life in the spotlight, I asked him again - for the third time - what the number 9,412 looked like to him. There was a flicker of recognition in his eyes before he closed them. He knew I hadn’t pulled those digits out of thin air. He put his fingers in his ears, and held them there for two very long, uncomfortable minutes of silence. “I can see it in my head. But I can’t break it down,” he said, finally.

Calendar calculation:

Calendar calculating, the only savant skill Daniel was willing to perform in front of me, turns out to be so simple that it really shouldn’t impress anyone. Savants like Kim, who can tell you the date of every Easter in the last thousand years, seem to have internalized the rhythms and rules of the calendar without explicitly understanding them. But anyone can learn them. There are several very simple calendar calculation formulas, published widely on the Internet. It only takes about an hour of practice to become fluent with them.

--ee1518 (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Pi Record?

http://www.pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/details/tammet.html Please explain?

This is news to me. It may be true that there was an error someplace in the recitation, even though he recited 22,514 digits. We should check this carefully (see WP:BLP), as many references cite the 22,514 number. Edhubbard (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This article seems to utterly contradict what's claimed at the first link I gave, but what's the source of the info about Tammet Pi recitation? - it's in a US newspaper and the record was supposed to have been done in the UK: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/garden/15savant.html The NYTimes article includes a claim that the recitation was monitored by people from "Oxford Brookes University", which is apparently a real university in Oxford, UK, but not the well-known University of Oxford, while a page that looks like it is from the University of Oxford verifies that it all happened at a museum which is also a department of University of Oxford. I guess it's not impossible, but it's a mite confusing. http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2004/040315_1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.231.124 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources are the ones currently in the article as 17 and 18: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2004/040315_1.html, http://pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/memo/index.html. In addition, you can search for the "BrainMan" documentary, which had a camera crew there rolling the whole time (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4913196365903075662, starting at 4:55). During the filming, there was no one that stood up and said, "this is an error". So, if we assume that all of the sources are reporting to the best of their knowledge, this error went uncaught for some time years. However, the website you've listed above is the only one saying this, so we'll probably need some additional confirmation of this (see WP:RS and WP:BLP). Edhubbard (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the Brainman documentary myself, and no way in the world are solid, uninterrupted hours of reciting Pi shown in the doco, and I'd never assume that any filmakers will automatically report every aspect of an event depicted in a doco. This was an event held for charity - hence a certain pressure on all for it to be a success, thus there could have been a motivation to overlook rules. Perhaps we need to ask if there is a difference between a serious record attempt within a set of established rules, and a less formal event done for charity, science or entertainment with less stringent rules. Is there an established body or organization who overlook record attempts? I've noticed that in one media story about Tammet that mentioned the Pi recitation, the journalist stood out as a better investigator for telling the reader about Tammet's change of surname, and he also did not himself state the number 22,514 as the number for the European record, but left this number to be given in a quote from Tammet, while himself mentioning 22,514 as the number of places simply recounted by Tammet. Evasion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.231.124 (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything I've seen suggests that this was a serious, verified record attempt. In particular, as noted in the references and in the video, there were at least two checkers there (maybe even three or more), verifying that Tammett was reciting pi correctly, which according to the only website that seems to be tracking this, is what they require for an official record attempt ([10]). The video does show conspicuous failures when Tammett was in Las Vegas, so I don't think it's so far-fetched that they would have mentioned it if he had failed. Similarly, the press releases, for example, from Oxford and in the New York Times and other places wouldn't have come out if someone had stood up *at the time* and said that there was an error. Major outlets, like the NYT, and so on have a duty to get it right, and so have fact checkers. This why we here in wikipedia count NYT times and other major papers as WP:RS. But, if this source is correct that there was an error that was identified after the attempt, we should be able to find other sources for it too. Edhubbard (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot to give link to last article mentioned: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/feb/12/weekend7.weekend2 This press article by Richard Johnson from The Guardian stands out among all the articles by jouros and also science journal papers by academics as the only one as far back as 2005 which noted that Tammet had changed his surname, which it turns out was a major clue relevant to Tammet's past. I could cite a number of later papers by academics who studied Tammet who appeared to be blissfully unaware of Tammet's name change and past life as a memory champion, so it is not true that articles in well-known papers or even papers by academics are infallible or even slightly investigative.

I noticed that Dominic O'Brien (memory champ?) was in the credits of the Brainman documentary. Was he present during the Pi event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.231.124 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Tammet in US radio interview in 2007: "Pi is one of my favorite numbers. I devote a chapter in the book to it. I have a peculiar claim to fame with the number pi. I hold the European record for reciting the number pi to 22,514 decimal places at the Museum of the History of Science in Oxford in 2004 on pi day - 3/14 - March 14th. And it took five hours to recite from start to finish. There were mathematicians to check the digits to make sure that I was accurate." http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=6860157 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.231.124 (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is relevant (maybe your) blog--211.5.11.43 (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting bit of info - way back in 2001 Daniel Tammet contacted Karen Ammond from the publicity and marketing firm KBC Media with the aim of having his interests represented. This was the same year that Tammet changed his name, 3 years before Tammet's Pi feat and 6 years before he was a study subject featured in a number of journal papers. Tammet was just a naive autistic boy with inexplicable abilities? I think not. Tammet is case study number 5 here: http://www.kbcmedia.com/ Ammond was an Associate Producer of the documentary Brainman: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0447877/fullcredits I'd say she could well have experienced a conflict of interests as Tammet's commercial agent and also a co-creator of a doco that is held up as an impartial record of events. Baron-Cohen and Darold Treffert appear as themselves in the documentary - HA HA HA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Need for a Wikipedia page about the Brainman / The Boy With the Incredible Brain documentary

I've not been able to find any Wikipedia page devoted to this controversial documentary alone. It was the launching pad for Daniel Tammet's career and has also been the subject of claims that it was deceptive ( http://myreckonings.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/LightningCalculators/lightningcalculators ) and could have had an error in Tammet's recounting of Pi edited out of it, and had as an Assocate Producer Karen Ammond from the marketing and publicity firm KBC Media which was also Tammet's PR firm ( http://www.kbcmedia.com/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0447877/fullcredits#cast ), and despite all this was nominated for a BAFTA Award and won some other big award, and has been referred to as a serious record of a scientific phenomenon by researchers. These are reasons enough to justify giving the doco a page, as there are many questions about it, and it has been very influential in the world of science and pop psychology. There is also much confusion about the two different versions of the doco under different titles for different countries. Apparently they are not exactly the same, and I've seen conflicting info about the producers and directors for each title.

Trained Mnemonist - Yes/No?

There appears to be verifiable evidence Tammet is a trained mnemonist.

• Wayback Machine (which archives snapshots of website content) evidences (from Tammet's own early website in 2001) Tammet studied and used mnemonic memory techniques, and sold a course based on mnemonic memory techniques.

Source: [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.61.121 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

E.Hubbard (Scientist: U.C. San Diego lab) tested Tammet. E.Hubbard confirmed Tammet passed the tests, but remarked "it is possible (indeed probable) that he (Tammet) is using strategies." (See statements above by author of study). S.Azoulai, researcher (referred to by E.Hubbard as, "the least skeptical" in the team), noted in a particular memorization of numbers test, the results were expressed in a manipulated form, quote "his (Tammet's) answers were written down in pairs, which means he was almost definitely using some memory tricks." (See statements above).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.118.84 (talk • contribs)

Where was this test documented? You added these quotes to the article, but only provided a "Statements specifically authored by scientists in Talk Page" as your source. A Wikipedia talk page obviously isn't a reliable source, we should cite the document you're quoting. --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

E.Hubbard's comments, along with a long discussion critical of the Wikipedia article, were deleted by Off2riorob. Here is a link to the deleted information. Bill121212 (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Reminder of Wikipedia's rules regarding Living Persons Biographical articles

I see one or two 'conspiracy theorists' have (once again?) taken to obsessively editing this article to their point of view. Please note Wikipedia's strict rules regarding living persons biographical articles:

No original research No_original_research

In particular: "Any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources" and "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."

Foer's chapter specifically discounts the likelihood that Tammet has 'faked' anything:

"If Daniel had concocted his story of being a natural savant, it would have required a degree of mendacity that I couldn’t quite bring myself to believe he possessed"(Page 189).

Foer equally disavows any of the certainty that a few here like to attribute to him:

"The one thing I know I can say for certain about him (Tammet) is that he is exceptionally bright” (page 193).

In fact, no reliable published source has specifically claimed that Tammet has lied or faked (very serious allegations, with potentially important legal and other consequences) at all.

Similarly, 'conspiracy theorist' claims about documentary makers faking scenes, or media reports lying about Tammet's Pi performance etc. clearly also constitute original research.

Neutral Point of View

"This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it" and "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view."

Foer's perspective represents a tiny minority viewpoint, alone among the hundreds of reliable sources in published media and the scientific community. To dedicate an entire section of the article to Foer's claims would seriously distort the article's balance, in contravention of Wikipedia's rules.

Wikipedia is not a forum

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages" and:

"Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person".

Wikipedia is not a democracy

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary, but not exclusive, method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting."

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oughtprice99. Contributions history 100% on Tammet. Aprrox. 60 edits in article. Incessant removal of verifiably sourced material. Suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.118.41 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Many people told you to sign at the end, but you do not conform. If you do not respect the rules, you are not welcome.--119.173.188.106 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone who forgets to sign their comments is still welcome. Editors should comment on the content, not on the contributor, though. "I think this guy is suspicious!" is not a useful rebuttal of the points he makes. --McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fæ said, "If you believe there is conflict of interest, please raise it for review at WP:COIN." Bill121212 (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous Statements

Above statements by Oughtprice99 are incorrect.

• Foer (former US Memory Champion) does suspect Tammet is feigning ability. Read (Moonwalking with Einstein) p.188-193. Amalgamation of points: Foer remains skeptical/doubtful.
• Reliable published sources do exist detailing speculation of trickery. In his book, Ronald Doerfler believes Tammet uses memorization of 1/97 to recite answer to division sum. (Parlour trick known in math circles - Prof. Aitken previously performed division trick).

Request aforementioned user to refrain from cherry-picking and distortion. Discord with several users is inhibiting an effort to balance article. Conflict of interest is evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.91.84 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fæ is complaining to wiki admins about people using anonymous IP addresses on this article. It would be better to create an account and login before criticizing the article. It's interesting that Off2riorob deleted a huge section of this talk page on the some day that the review of the talk page was requested. Bill121212 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I raised the issue of this page having poorly sourced potential BLP violations on BLPN at Wikipedia:BLPN#Daniel_Tammet for independent review. This is not the same thing as asking for admin intervention and although I have mentioned that these issues seem to be related to the use of anon IPs, this is not the same as complaining that anon IPs are contributing here. It is, however, self evident that if the same person is using different anon IPs on a discussion page, it becomes rapidly confusing to follow connected discussions. I have not reviewed Off2riorob's recent actions. --Fæ (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe Rob archived older discussions. I don't think he deleted anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the choice of words. "Hid" is a better description. We are still actively discussing that content. Off2riorob said he didn't read the book in question, so he shouldn't be blocking additions to the page. There are two sources that should be added to the wiki page: Tammet's old archived website and Moonwalking with Einstein. There is no reason not to add them, and the only two users blocking it are Oughtprice99 and Off2riorob. Most everyone else is for their addition. See the content that Off2riorob removed. Bill121212 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tammet admits working as psychic in Foer's book. Foer's book (Moonwalking with Einstein) is reliable source. Request user support to submit reliably-sourced fact (which Tammet himself does not deny). BLP violation is not applicable here.188.29.135.220 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think your version was good and this revert was unjustifiable.--210.196.10.252 (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW it is a shame that Fae tries to deemphasize the importance of the bestseller. Everyone please look here.--210.196.10.252 (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Relevant point--211.5.18.119 (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

See this, Mr IP, you can summarize Foer's findings, and this is not valdalism. Mr Tammet, you are still a marvellous person. You can seek a different career.--211.5.24.21 (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't a large section featuring the controversy over Tammet (mentioned above) need to be added? I have been teaching a unit study on savants and mnemonists, and some of the first material that I found in published books is about the controversy over Tammet's claimed savantism. It seems clear that he himself has said he trained for years to develop his memory. Especially interesting are the widely publicized claims that, for example, he learned German in a week, when in fact he claimed through mnemonics he had "mastered German" years before that (See Foer). To be fair, there is info on this on Wikipedia in the article on Foer's book itself, but for it to be missing here seems to render the article woefully incomplete, and compromises the "neutral" tone of this article, as it seems to unquestioningly accept various claims from Tammet that have been proven highly questionable in subsequently published works and research.Avoiceinthemist (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit protection

Due to the recent edit war on this article and in consideration of an apparent history of previous disputes on similar lines, I have fully protected it for a week. Please use {{editprotected}} to propose and discuss changes and take note of The three-revert rule which has already been broken. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mention of Tammet's 2001 old website in article

In Tammet’s own website from 2001, he states during school using “these tried-and-tested techniques” to improve exam performance. Reliably sourced and exact.188.29.13.109 (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem with link? Go to http://www.archive.org/web/web.php then next to “Take Me Back’ button enter http://www.danieltammet.com click on “2001” bar then click “3 May” then click “About Me.”188.29.13.109 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There is justification to mention in the article that Tammet launched a website in 2001. For reasons of accuracy and balance there is justification to mention that Tammet previously (during school) used "tried-and-tested techniques" to improve exam performance.188.29.13.109 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, and scores of published secondary sources, the website belonging to Tammet is called Optimnem and did not appear online before 2002.

User 188.29.13.109’s cited primary source is a long defunct webpage, the owner and author of which has/have not been confirmed.

Furthermore, the sole secondary source to mention the webpage is Foer’s book, whose (minority) perspective has already been included in the article following much discussion and eventual consensus between editors.

The possibility that Tammet uses or has used mnemonic strategies (of whatever nature) is also already stated in the article, including a link to Wikipedia’s ‘Method of Loci’ article.

User 188.29.13.109 has repeatedly attempted a number of poorly sourced and contentious edits to this article over a period of several days, without once seeking consensus, deleting a talk page thread, and ignoring other editors’ comments.

Finally, Wikipedia’s rules are clear that living persons biography articles should be edited conservatively. Poorly sourced and contentious claims are always to be avoided.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous claim. Admin advice was sought prior to the recent well-sourced edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.216.124 (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Foer's perspective is a "minority" perspective? I bet his/our skeptical perspective wouldn't be seen as a fringe view if we had a top American PR firm selling our story. I've been able to find many media stories supposedly written by journalists about Tammet, and most of them fail to mention important facts about Tammet, including his name change and anything that happened in his life that wasn't written about in his autobiographies. I've found media reports of his Pi recounting that don't even give an exact number for how many decimal places he got to. I've also found some journal papers about Tammet that are full of methodological flaws, questionable and unsupported assertions and important omissions. I've found a relationship between Tammet and a supposed scientist/clinician in which the two write nice forewords for each other's books. A big pile of slovenly and sycophantic press articles, some bad science and two autobiographies that only tell a portion of the story doesn't represent a majority view, it just represents very good media management and partnerships with some scientists who don't deserve to be described as such. I'm insulted by characterizations of the skeptical view as conspiracy theories. I'm sure that I am not the only interested person who has always held a degree of skepticism towards Tammet's story, even though I am myself a synaesthete. Believing the official story as told in Tammet's books is the more outlandish view which violates Occam's razor, requiring a high degree of credulity. The findings of the journal paper about Tammet published in 2007 in Neurocase can only be reconciled with Tammet's self-description as a synaesthete with mysterious untrained abilities by special pleading, that Tammet is some special type of synaesthete whose brain scan does not conform to expectations about brain scans typical of synaesthetes. There's nothing odd or eccentric in expressing skepticism about such a paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk of libel is silly. Verifiable facts mentioned only. Something serious: Embedded point legitimate to mention given its importance (i.e. Tammet admits use of “tried-and-tested” memory techniques in his earlier website). Note: No quotation from Joshua Foer’s findings. Edit is imbalanced.

Suggestion: In his book Moonwalking with Einstein, Joshua Foer speculates that study of conventional mnemonic approaches has played a role in Tammet's feats of memory, citing contents from Tammet’s old website. However, in a review of his book for The New York Times, psychologist Alexandra Horowitz described Foer's speculation as among the book's few "missteps", questioning whether it would matter if Tammet had used such strategies or not. (Add references)

Regarding Manti (unpublished/unverifiable). Represents tiny point within Tammet’s work. Superfluous in article. Suggest removal and put the following sentence alongside edit which mentions language ability.

Suggestion: Tammet has invented his own constructed language called Manti, which uses vocabulary and grammar from the Finnic group of languages.188.28.83.176 (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting points User 124.150.32.120. Thanks. Can you provide source regarding Tammet's brain scan which does not show interaction with areas of the brain responsible for sensation of colour. Post here. Fact should be represented in article.188.28.83.176 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I already did provide the necessary info! As I already stated, it is in the Neurocase paper which is behind a paywall. In brain scanning they found evidence that Tammet was using chunking, a technique of trained memory experts, and they found a lack of activation of areas of the brain associated with colour-grapheme synaesthesia: “Given the earlier fMRI study of synaesthesia had found extra-striate activation, using the same contrast we also specifically examined visual regions that corresponded to DT’s extra-modal percepts of colour, form, shape and texture. Neither the V4 ROI taken from Nunn et al. (2002), nor the anatomically defined visual ROIs showed any significant activation (all p>.1).” (p.315) Bor, D, Billington, J, Baron-Cohen, S. (2007) Savant memory for digits in a case of synaesthesia and Asperger syndrome is related to hyperactivity in the lateral prefrontal cortex. Neurocase. 2007 Oct;13(5):311-9. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/psych/nncs http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a791809555 I'd like to make it clear that is not "original research"! I am doing nothing more than restating what is clearly in this paper which was published in a supposedly reputable science journal. I did not conduct this study myself and my name is not among those of authors of this paper. I have quoted the words of researchers. I have not made up these quotes. Feel free to verify the info given by me yourself. you will need to either buy the paper or access it thru an academic library. Wikipedia's rule about "no original research" has the effect of reinforcing the elitist power structures that are in our society, often at the expense of the pursuit of the truth. Wikipedia very questionably regards just about anything published in print or written by an academic as credible, even if it logically contradicts other sources, while at the same time discounting people like me who base arguments or quote directly from published sources that are not readily accessible thru the internet. Over all the years that I have been scrutinizing the Wikipedia, I have seen huge discrepancies between the quality of materials that have been accepted by the Wikipedia as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who talked of libel? I only pointed out the gravity of your claims that Tammet is a 'liar' and 'faker' etc. Your suggestion: "Tammet admits use of "tried-and-tested" memory techniques in his earlier website" requires a high level of evidence. Here's why:

• "Tammet admits..." The verb is loaded, so let's change it to the more neutral "Tammet states..." But the only primary source for this 'admission' or 'statement' is a long defunct webpage of uncertain origin (name misspelled, no copyright notice, etc.). The only website belonging to Tammet for which there are multiple reliable published secondary sources is Optimnem.co.uk which went online in 2002.

• "...use of "tried-and-tested memory techniques..." This very precise claim counts as an extraordinary claim, seeing as no published secondary source (with the exception of Foer's contentious claims) has ever mentioned these techniques, beyond Tammet's synesthetic descriptions of colored words and numbers etc. Wikipedia's rules for living persons biographies require that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, i.e. multiple reliable published secondary sources.

• "in his earlier website" Again, this precise claim counts as extraordinary. No mention of it beyond Foer's claims which are contentious (and are disputed by Tammet in the same chapter of the book). Wikipedia's rules for living persons biographies require that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, i.e. multiple reliable published secondary sources.

As for Manti, Tammet talks about it in both of his published works. Multiple reliable published secondary sources describe it. I don't see any reason for cutting it.

Finally, please bear in mind that Foer's book - from which you cite heavily - represents one journalist's personal and subjective point of view regarding Tammet. In the same book, Foer says that he can be certain of nothing that he says about Tammet except that he believes him to be extremely bright. The consensus among editors here was that Foer's minority perspective should be included, but only very briefly and with caveats (see earlier discussions above). No new published reliable secondary sources have emerged since book's publication to alter that consensus. Cherry-picking quotes from the book is not appropriate for editing a living person biography article.

As for the claims of 124.150.32.120 (AKA 'Lili Marlene'), refer to Wikipedia's rules regarding original research and fringe theories.

If one of Tammet's brain scans "did not show interaction with areas of the brain responsible for sensation of colour" (User 188.28.83.176) it's because the researchers conclude based on their findings that Tammet "has an unusual and more abstract and conceptual form of synaesthesia" (quote from study). The idea that synesthetes' brains always show interaction with colour areas of brain is plain wrong. Take the abstract of this 2011 study for example:

"We observed no activation of ‘colour areas’ by graphemes in ten synaesthetes, whatever the strength of their synaesthetic associations, and no structural difference between synaesthetes and twenty-five control subjects in the ‘colour regions’. The localizationist conception of visual processing is therefore too simplistic to account for the synaesthetic experience, and further research should look for distributed correlates of synaesthetic colours...The key to synaesthetic colour experience might not lie in the colour system, but may be related to the complex construction of meaning by the brain, involving not only perception, but language, memory and emotion." (http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=v110285)

Oughtprice99 (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC) You've managed to dig up a single-author paper by an author who I've never heard of, (and I have read a lot of the research in the area of synaesthesia), which goes against the general consensus of researchers in the area of grapheme-colour synaesthesia. Is there soome kind of prize for this type of trick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Lack of balance in reporting of face memory testing and ability of Tammet

The article as it stands today mentions that Tammet's face memory ability was tested by Baron-Cohen and team (using an unnamed test) and found to be impaired, but it fails to mention that Tammet's face memory ability was also tested by Maguire, Valentine et al in their study of World Memory Championship participants, and I found nothing in that paper to suggest that there was a member of the group of subjects who had impaired face memory. One also needs to consider that Tammet reportedly got a gold medal in a World Memory Championship event titled "names and faces", and also two early press stories claiming that Tammet has face memory consistent with "super-recognizer" ability. At least one of these conflicting reports must be untrue. A careful reading of Tammet's first autobiography also provides reason to feel skepticism about Tammet's claims that he has a face recognition impairment. Would a prosopagnosic use the phrase "a familiar face" to describe an old friend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Maguire study was a group study, looking for characteristics common to the participants rather than any individual differences (that's what individual studies are for).

The 'names and faces' event: The names could have served as a trigger for each photo. The Baron-Cohen test used only photos of faces.

The press stories you refer to were from British tabloids and would not be considered reliable sources.

No source (including Foer) suggests Tammet has ever been diagnosed with prosopagnosia.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"The 'names and faces' event: The names could have served as a trigger for each photo." Trigger for what? A person who has prosopagnosia, which is the proper term for what Tammet has claimed to have a number of times, has no memory of faces to trigger. Tammet may not have been explicitly given the label of prosopagnosia, but in the Journal of Consciousness paper of 2007 Baron-Cohen et al wrote of Tammet after testing "...his face memory appears impaired...” and Tammet has clearly claimed to have serious problems with recognizing faces in his second autobiography "In my own case, I have great difficulty remembering faces, even those of people I have known for many years.", hinted at face memory issue on the Australian 60 Minutes show in 2007 and claimed to be impaired in recognizing people on the US 60 Minutes show in 2009. My point is that Tammet himself has claimed, post-first autobiography, to have big face memory problems, in stark contrast with earlier accounts of his face memory performance, including some text from his first autobiography. There are so many vast inconsistencies to find, if one bothers to look.

I hope everyone realizes that importance of Tammet's genuineness for all of the many conditions that he claims to have. As a case study he has become thoroughly embedded in the scientific literature, in many published science journal papers and apparently also some textbooks, and has also made a huge impact on the popular understanding of psychology. If he is not genuine, this is a huge problem for psychology, and a huge embarassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 124.150.32.120. This article is Wikipedia at its worst. Bill121212 (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus process?

Hi, I see only two people in these discussions, so far, with little sense of consensus. If others have not spontaneously come forward, perhaps asking for a third opinion using Third opinion or expressing a neutral question for wider community comment using Requests for comment might provide useful alternative views and proposals? Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be 3, not 2. IP 188.... and 124....(shifting) seem to be different.--210.196.9.19 (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I see IPs in Australia, the UK and Japan so it is fair to assume these are different folks even if some may use dynamic IPs. --Fæ (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fae. Believe first title in talk page re-edited recently. Was titled 'disputed claims'. Opening lines recently added and user's whole original posting removed. Please check.188.29.61.207 (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

don't worry, that safely remains. just click Archive 1.--211.5.11.221 (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Andreas Brekken's edit and following edits still missing (see Archive). Inserting edits/deleting threads is strictlly forbidden and contrary to Wikipedia's rules.188.28.215.91 (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The article protection has expired. As I was asked, I have now looked through the archive and the discussions here. My opinion on the archive of danieltammet.com as a source is that it is a poor site on which to single-source information in a BLP. The same archived page claims he is a "leading authority on Mindpower", and I doubt that anyone would want that added to the article. If the information is to be re-added it would need more than an old archive of a now non-existent self promotional website. Sources for biographies of living people need to be of good quality and contentious information would require multiple quality sources. If this contentious information is re-added without a demonstrable consensus here first, it may be entirely legitimate for any editor to remove it; see WP:BLPREMOVE for the specific policy.

Warnings for previous edit-warring were given, please take careful note of the WP:3RR policy and make good use of this talk page instead in line with WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If discussion here is reaching a dead end, you may find WP:BLPN helpful. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Request re-think. Claim: International web archiver, Wayback Machine (which simply captures website content) is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.61.71 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Consider that Oughtprice99 may be Tammet. Wayback Machine records webpages, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it as a source. Tammet's own website is a very reliable source. It just happens to be available on the Wayback Machine. Many people have tried to add links to it, but Oughtprice99 blocks it. Bill121212 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Such speculation as to the identity of editors is unlikely to be helpful and may be seen as harassment. If you believe there is conflict of interest, please raise it for review at WP:COIN. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Dual roles of Karen Ammond and KBC Media need to be mentioned in this article

Karen Ammond from the PR firm KBC Media which Tammet has, by KBC Media's own account, been represented by since 2001, was also an Associate Producer of the documentary Brainman that arguably launched Tammet's career and reputation in the worlds of science and also in the popular eye. This is a potential conflict of interest, and it also goes against what the man in the street would expect from a documentary. Documentaries are generally understood to represent a non-commercial and non-fictional treatment of a subject. Science documentaries are definitely not expected to be creations of a PR person or to act as promotional vehicles. It has been many years since I bothered to actually edit Wikipedia, so don't look to me to do this work, but I'm mentioning it here for at least some readers to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk • contribs)

I agree that it should be mentioned in the article. It's obvious that this Wikipedia page is missing a lot of important information. Bill121212 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

More complete account of research done on Tammet please

I see no mention of the old study of Tammet done by Ramachandran, Azouli et al which included the appropriately cautious statement "As in all cases like this we need to consider the fact that Arithmos may be performing almost of his ‘mental feats’ via pure memorization.", or the other documented research studies done by Gary Morgan and Neil Smith, or the recent book in which some of this research is described, co-authored by Ianthi Tsimpli, Bencie Woll, Morgan and Smith. I think readers might be interested to know that in testing Tammet has been compared to another language savant. There is too much emphasis on the research done by Baron-Cohen and his colleagues. To my knowledge Tammet has never been reported as doing the state-of-the-art test of grapheme-colour synaesthesia, The Synesthesia Battery, and he has never been studied by experts in the field of face recognition and prosopagnosia. Baron-Cohen et al's inquiries in these areas were using instruments which I believe are no longer the best available tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.32.120 (talk • contribs)

Third Opinions Please

Anon IP 188.28/9... continues to make persistant edits to article (13 consecutive edits in a 5-hour period on 11 Dec) with as sole reference the Foer book. I kindly ask him to refrain from further edits until editors have had the chance to discuss and see what consensus can be found.

188.28/9... is attempting to reproduce one of the claims made in the book, namely that Tammet once worked as a 'psychic' and now 'regrets' having done so. I have several reservations about reproducing this claim in a BLP article:

• Foer's perspective on Tammet is clearly hostile and minority. Previous discussions including Enchanter, off2riorob, EdHubbard (etc.) reached a consensus that Foer's perspective should be incorporated into the article in a sensitive and marginal way to avoid undue weight. The book's title, author, and viewpoint are already listed in article. Cherry picking specific claims from it in addition would appear to go against this existing editorial consensus.

• Revisions to a BLP article typically require multiple reliable published secondary sources. For example few, if any, claims in article draw exclusively from Tammet's published works. The same principle would appear to be at least equally applicable to Foer's book, for which no such sources exist - save for a negative comment in a review by a major psychologist in the New York Times.

• The specific claim is of a highly sensitive, contentious, and potentially defamatory nature. No other secondary source even hints at it. BLP article rules would seem to require multiple reliable published secondary sources before reproducing such a claim.

For these reasons I have undone the edit and requested page protection while discussion is underway.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed? I see a lot of claims that this opinion is hostile and inflamatory, but there does not seem to be a lot of evidence provided. Could someone please verify that this is clearly a minority view? This seems to be a little explored issue, and so the weight of one view in the matter is extremely hard to determine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.144.111 (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Misleading. Foer's book has been reviewed in various publications.--211.5.17.178 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I beleive that Foer's book is generally very well regarded by ppl who have read it. I've seen it mentioned in various places on the internet and it's recommended by many.

As good as Foer's book is, it only sparked more open discussion of issues that many ppl have had with Tammet's claims for a long time, and the most damning evidence against Tammet is provided by himself - in the countless inconsistencies between his own two books, inconsistencies between the many claims that he has made in books, websites and media interviews, inconsistencies between his claims and real events, and the many inconsistencies between what he has achieved and done in his past and his post-name-change claims about his own life and abilities.

I love the hypocrisy of the wikipedia - one time we are advised that Wikipedia isn't a democracy, then later we are told that the realistic and broadly-based view of Tammet should be given less coverage because it is a minority view, and the viewpoint of many different groups and individuals who disbelieve the official Tammet story is dismissed repeatedly as fringe and conspiracy theory. Numbers shouldn't matter - the truth should matter above all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.44.152 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Checking the talk page and biographies noticeboard, there is an established consensus to mention Tammet's psychic work. Tammet openly discussed his work experience as a paid psychic in Joshua Foer's book (2011), "Moonwalking with Einstein". This fact is in the public domain. Foer's book is an international best seller. The author is a science journalist and former US Memory Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.190.242 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Great read

Recently added (and reverted) ref is quite a good research.--211.5.16.49 (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[4] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[6] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Oughtprice99 (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Doerfler is established expert in field of calculating prodigies - Amazon sold book "Dead Reckoning: Calculating without Instruments" (Publisher: Gulf Publishing Company, 1993). Note, secondary remark by Doerfler refers to documentary not living person - hence argument not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.98.131 (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Tammet first reached public attention in 2004, 11 years after Doerfler's book was published. Your insertions appear based solely on a blog maintained by the author. Have refered matter to Wiki living persons bio articles Noticeboard. Oughtprice99 (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Doerfler's earlier book (1993) highlights his expertise in the field. Note, Martin Gardner (renowned author of Scientific America - 25 years) wrote, "no author has gone as far as Doerfler in covering methods of mental calculation". Doerfler's expertise has been praised in several reviews as well. Doerfler's later ebook (2008) is available via his website. The author makes two detailed criticisms in "Lightning Calculators". He claims to debunk Tammet's calculating ability. And, he comments on the deceptive nature of the documentary. Given the authors endorsed status as an expert in the field, the criticisms appear worthy for inclusion in the article. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.190.242 (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What an outdated and clearly wrong idea is the one that self-published written works should be assumed to have less quality credibility than books or articles published by some business or body independent from the author. These days bloggers break important news stories. Take a look at Wikipedia's page about self-published best-sellers. Many of the greatest names in literature self-published. How patently absurd and sad is the belief that conventionally published works automatically have some credibility. A few minutes browsing in the self-help section of any popular bookseller shop should confirm that shoddy and ridiculous rot by unqualified authors often gets published by major publishing houses and is aggressively promoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.178.157 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 April 2012

This page has been protected following my repeated and detailed requests to the living persons bio noticeboard. Unfortunately the current version preserves all the latest edits by the anon user in question, and which breach Wikipedia's guidelines for living person bio articles.

-A sentence lifted out of context from subject's memoir and constitutes original research. This should therefore be removed.

-User has removed referenced statement that subject 'says' he speaks ten languages (reference comes from subject's memoir). User claims the statement is not verifiable - this is original research. Previous version ought to be restored.

-User claims subject gave an interview in Icelandic for 'a few minutes' - original research. It is also inaccurate as the spoken Icelandic actually says 'next minutes' and subtitle reads 'next few minutes'. No published secondary source states interview duration.

-Final edit removes referenced statements from subject's book or blog, or other media articles that refer to these, conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. User has removed these without consensus. Please restore.

User's (long-running) pattern (under several aliases/IP addresses) of editing behavior constitutes vandalism. This is at least the third time that the article has been edit protected because of it. Oughtprice99 (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oughtprice99 (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

✗ Not done Please read WP:WRONGVERSION. mabdul 10:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mabdul, A little humor is never a bad thing!

To Wiki editors, could someone actually weigh in on the above? Would be good to establish some form of consensus. Else, I fear this new dispute will drag on pointlessly like others before it.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I want to try to explain it better. As described in WP:PREFER - a part of our protecting policy - full protection because of edit warring / a content dispute, there is never a right version. One of the parties always claims that the wrong version is the current version. As you were the only contributor here proposing that edit, I safely can cite the PREFER link: "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". So, get a consensus and especially try to settle down that discussion with that user. And keep always in mind: we have no deadline! mabdul 10:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Exceptional claims of language ability need verification. There is no evidence of other languages spoken other than French, German and Icelandic. Impressive self-written claims and inconsistent claims made to the press (reported differently and reported as “can” speak) where there is no consensus and a self-claim of ability which cannot be independently verified makes for a poor edit. Put simply, anyone could claim in a self-written memoir to speak say 12 languages – it hardly makes good editing to include touted claims of grandeur absent of reported consensus and verification. To accept mention of self-made claims would reduce every Wikipedia biography to the temptation of distortion and PR filling.

COMMENT: Tammet studied German to A-level. Anyone who has studied language and who speaks German to a reasonable degree, would have little problem in learning conversation-level Icelandic in one week. 89.240.164.153 (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

My edit read, “In his memoir, talking about algebra, Tammet states not experiencing a synaesthetic response for letters.” On page 117 of “Born on a Blue Day” (publisher: Hodder and Stoughton, copyright 2006 Daniel Tammet), talking about maths/algebra in the leading sentence, Tammet (in his own self-written memoir) wrote: “I found it very difficult to use equations that substituted numbers – to which I had a synaesthetic and emotional response – for letters, to which I had none.” I trust users and admin will agree that my edit is faithfully and accurately phrased. I have rightfully restored the reliably sourced edit. That said, if admin deem the latter wording is preferable, please insert the edit on my behalf. However, I assert that Tammet's wording is written in an awkward way and for ease of understanding my version which, says exactly the same thing, is clearer. User Oughtprice99 falsely and oddly labels the edit as original research – obsessively reverted. This is clearly wrong. Also, Oughtprice99 originally complained the reproduced sentence did not include its context or a page number – both have been given. There is no justification to discuss this point any more.

I, and several users or administrators, have intervened previously regarding user Oughtprice99’s frequent, fallacious and disruptive conduct – leading to warnings and reverts (for example, see User Oughtprice99’s Talk Page). To cite an example of vandalism, user Oughtprice99 was recently stopped by a user and myself for deleting irrefutable scientific findings and then pulled up again for altering the scientists’ comments to suit his own bias – evidence of vandalism and COIN. Another example of vandalism by Oughtprice99 involves covertly adding wording not attributable to the original author (I can cite the sentence if requested). Also, I noticed in a recent BLPN, user Oughtprice99’s claims were denounced/rejected by two users and furthermore, Oughtprice99 was told he should not make personal assumptions about a user’s identity – same mistake made again. Be aware also that the same user obsessively reverted Joshua Foer’s reliably sourced (book published) criticism, upholding a consensus of 5:1 for several weeks (see Talk Page history) – mistakenly arguing to block a criticism before eventually being forced to concede.

Additionally, user Oughtprice99 also blocked Joshua Foer’s (Moonwalking with Einstein) criticism about Tammet’s face recognition ability. Citing a reliable, secondary source (World Memory Championships), the author highlighted Tammet’s gold medal Name/Face results and compared the findings with the Cambridge study “impaired” results. Note, pictures of faces are given, and upon recognition of the faces, the contestants have to recall the names). Science journalist and former US Memory Champion, Joshua Foer, outlined the anomaly in his award-winning book. A several user consensus was established in the Talk Page. User Oughtprice99 obsessively blocked all attempts to sensitively mention the reliably sourced, referenced point – demonstrating further dogmatic control the site. This edit is unresolved.

These are just a few examples, of which there are many, showing ill-intent or misguided judgement. There are a plethora of instances of invention and falsities, in addition to umpteen edit wars all involving the same user throughout the Talk Page. Several users have complained and it appears several users have felt sidelined or disheartened as a result of lengthy, quarrelsome exchanges with Oughtprice99. Bar some genuine objections, it is clear that the protectionist, COIN user (several users in the Talk Page speculate is Tammet) is controlling the article and solely shaping the article with approxiametly 150 edits of late, and furthermore, obsessively acting to prevent ordinary statements from been edited in. To give an example, user Oughtprice99 is defending vagueness over preciseness, e.g. preventing editors from inserting the exact list of universities which have tested Tammet (i.e. all major media sources state two universities only: Cambridge (ARC) and UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies). Also, user Oughtprice99 is misleading readers by quoting the NYT reference – he knows full well the reference points to the previous sentence – two, two word (adjective/adverb) unsupported insertions of no substance. To give yet another example, Oughtprice99 is obsessively deleting the reliably sourced fact that the Icelandic interviewers spoke to Tammet for a few minutes, as stated verbally in Icelandic and stated in English subtitles, as evidenced in the UK documentary, The Boy with the Incredible Brain. Moreover, user Oughtprice99 is deliberately misleading readers by not disclosing that the TED related sentence was copied from a website, specifically referenced as blog material which, constitutes poor and inadequate sourcing as per Wikipedia rules. A few users in the Talk Page have attributed misleading edits to Oughtprice99 before. Finally, I have also noticed that Oughtprice99 appears to have posted an originally researched finding about a female user’s background in a previous BLPN and posted a somewhat disparaging remark about author Joshua Foer in a user’s Talk Page – which I feel is disrespectful and unacceptable.

User Oughtprice99 is arguably taking ownership of the article and at times is abusing his privilege to edit the article – deleting reliably sourced edits, edit warring and obsessively quibbling on and on about factual edits from reasoning which is baseless and erroneous. The user has a long history of malpractice. Collectively there is a compelling case for admin to recognise the user’s often problematic and persistent disregard for Wikipedia rules and practices which, I have only partly summarized above. Can something be done to curb or stop further flagrant malpractice?

Regarding edit protection, one reasonable suggestion would be to indefinitely protect the reliably sourced edits I have made to prevent embedded alterations/deletions being made within legitimate future edits by user Oughtprice99 or an anonymous IP user. User Oughtprice99 has altered paragraph wording before while adding legitimate details to a citation (see edits related to scientific study findings – no activation of colour areas in regions of the brain).

It is reasonable to assume given Oughtprice99’s history further disruption is highly likely. There is evidence of COIN, insistence on OPOV only, vandalism, constant edit warring, controlling the site – the collective impact of which is spoiling the editing experience of Wikipedia users from editing reliably sourced material – i.e. inserting edits into the article from Tammet’s own self-written memoir. As a result few people edit now. I petition admin to act.XNQlo (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

XNQlo (talk · contribs) you appear to have created a Single-purpose account for this article, would you like to explain why you feel you needed to do this? Do not feel obliged to answer, and I'm sorry if this might come over as a bit bitey, but given this context it appears unlikely that this is your first time contributing here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

XNQlo's comments are both unfair and inaccurate, but I don't want to engage in pointless tit-for-tat when our sole focus should be whether the edits made by the above user meet Wikipedia's guidelines for a living person biography article.

I think this page is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

- Can sentences be lifted from Tammet's memoir by a Wikipedia user and inserted into the article? The above guidelines suggest the response is no: "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

- XNQlo has removed a sentence from Tammet's memoir (note the contradiction - he inserts sentences from the book that constitute original research, having never appeared in a third-party reliable published source, while removing sentences from the same book, but which have also been republished in third-party reliable published sources) stating that the subject 'says' he speaks 10 languages. XNQlo argues that this claim needs to be 'verified' before it can be reproduced here. But the guidelines given above suggest that statements from the subject's book can be used. Here are two examples of reliable third-party published sources that also report the claim:

The Independent, by Hermione Eyre, published July 23 2006: "Daniel Tammet can speak 10 languages, including Lithuanian and Welsh, as well as his own invented language, "Mänti", which has about 1,000 words."

Spiegel, by Philip Bethge, published 3 May 2009: "Using his own special technique, the 30-year-old, who has a mild form of autism, has learned to speak more than 10 languages."

- XNQlo wants to insert a sentence stating that the Icelandic interview lasted 'a few minutes'. He bases this on the documentary subtitles that show 'we will try to speak to Daniel Tammet in Icelandic for the next few minutes'. How many minutes? 'Next few minutes' is very imprecise - was it 5 minutes, or 10, or 15? And does it even matter? Isn't it already clear from the article that a live television interview won't last for hours?

- XNQlo has removed the statement that Tammet appeared among the invited speakers at TED2011 in California. The source is Tammet's blog. XNQlo claims that blogs are not reliable sources. But the above guidelines suggest that this is incorrect: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 2.the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 3.the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Also: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material."

The statement can also be sourced from TED's own website: http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_tammet_different_ways_of_knowing.html

Oughtprice99 (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

XNQlo makes some valid points. The quote from Tammet's book about non-synaesthetic response for letters is unquestionably acceptable. I do not accept the generalisation that Tammet has been tested by researchers in America and Britain. Why? I favour accuracy, i.e. only two centres of research are mentioned across all media sources. I suggestion the following: "Tammet has been tested by researchers at Cambridge University Autism Research Centre and UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies." I agree with XNQlo about self-serving claims of language ability without any test of fluency. It is not an appropriate edit. Regarding the matter about acceptability of blog material, it represents poor and improper sourcing, and so any quotes taken from Tammet's own website or his blog or any other blog is no good. I noticed that two, approximately one and a half minute clips of Tammet speaking in Icelandic are shown in the documentary. The interview was very short. It is handy to know how long the interview lasted as Tammet in his memoir does not disclose the duration of the interview. XNQlo is aiming for precision I think. The Icelandic interviewers mention "next few minutes" and XNQlo states "few minutes" - it is hardly original research. Just an observation . . . why has user Oughtprice99 created a single-purpose account solely representing the Tammet article?194.238.70.70 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read BLPN for update.XNQlo (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Article should mention specifically that Tammet was tested at two universities only. 188.29.185.217 (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus (Foer viewpoint)

User 188.28.190.242 has again raised the issue of Foer's viewpoint on Tammet as discussed in his book 'Moonwalking with Einstein'. As old hands will know, this is a long-running issue which previous discussions here have repeatedly sought to settle.

My own view is that Foer's viewpoint is noteworthy, but minority. Attempts to create a new, dedicated 'criticisms' section therefore threaten article balance: it already incorporates Foer's viewpoint using wording previously agreed here by consensus.

Specific details from Foer's book concerning Tammet have appeared on some blog pages, but not in any reliable published media reporting. The lack of any secondary sources (and therefore lack of established notability) weighs against their inclusion in the article.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

--Robert Saunders (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC) The fact that Tammet (then Corney) won the gold medal in the 2000 World Memory Championships names-and-faces event is not just Foer's viewpoint. It is a fact that is confirmed on the statistics pages of the Official World Memory Championship's website (http://www.world-memory-statistics.com/competition.php?id=wmc2000&discipline=namesold15). This fact must be included in the article for two reasons: 1) because it is the only event Tammet/Corney has ever won in the World Memory Championships, and 2) because it contrasts so markedly with Tammet's performance in Baron-Cohen's face memory test.

Also, the reference to Foer's scepticism is too vague in the article as it stands. Foer specifically casts doubt on the veracity of Tammet's synaesthesia. This should be mentioned.

Agree with User Saunders points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.207.81 (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, checking the talk page and biographies noticeboard, there is an established consensus to mention Tammet's psychic work. Tammet openly discussed his work experience as a paid psychic in Joshua Foer's book (2011), "Moonwalking with Einstein". This fact is in the public domain. Foer's book is an international best seller. The author is a science journalist and former US Memory Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.207.81 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks like original research. I have raised at BLPN. Oughtprice99 (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This Wikipedia rule appears particularly pertinent here: WP:WELLKNOWN

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (my emphasis)

Oughtprice99 (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes - its undue, opinionated and imo attacking content that is repeatedly being added by the same user under different IP addresses - Youreallycan 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Stick to content issues only. Foer's criticisms satisfy notability and relevance requirements. Foer's book covers several pages on Tammet and therefore appears well-documented. Tammet makes several contributions on pages 188-194 approximately. The latest edit by User Saunders captures the essence of Foer's notable opinions. Perhaps use of more direct quotes would be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.238.70.70 (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

its undue, opinionated and imo attacking content are all content issues - Youreallycan 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

--Robert Saunders (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC) As nobody appears to have raised a coherent objection to the points I suggest above, please will someone re-instate the content that I added to the criticism section (or similar)? I would be happy if it were decided to add a longer direct quote from Foer, as suggest above. At the very least, the fact that Tammet won the 2000 WMC names-and-faces event must be included somewhere as it is factually accurate, verifiable and relevant.

If you want to add large quotes from Foer , I suggest you add them to his own article - As for the 2000 WMC names-and-faces event under a different name? What are the citations for such a claim? - Youreallycan 16:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

--Robert Saunders (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC) The citation for the Tammet (then Corney) winning the 2000 WMC name-and-faces event is the link I give above, which can also be found by clicking on the "memory achievements" link on the home page of the Official WMC website (http://www.worldmemorychampionship.com). It is also stated in Foer's book. Unless anyone can provide any evidence to suggest that this fact is inaccurate, it must re-instated in the article.

--Robert Saunders (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC) It's over a month since I posted the citation above. Nobody has responded. Does anybody still object to the inclusion of the fact that Tammet (then Corney) won the gold medal in the 2000 World Memory Championships names-and-faces event? Also, does anybody object including a reference to the fact that Foer specifically casts doubt on the veracity of Tammet's synaesthesia, as I suggest above?

Buzan, Tony and Keene, Ray (2005) Buzan’s book of mental world records. D&B Publishing, 2005. In this book Daniel Corney is at number 33 in the table The World’s Top 100 Memorizers on page 56 for his world competition achievement in the year 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.94.80 (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Page 56 of the above published hard-copy book is the second page of a table of "The World's Top 100 Memorisers", and it confirms that "Corney, Daniel" at ranking 33 competed for "GB" in the world competition on the 21st and 22nd of the eighth month of 2000 and scored 3644 points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.94.80 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Foer disbelieves Tammet. Cites (using web archiver) www.danieltammet.com - therein Tammet admits training in mnemonic techniques. Cites pyschic work which Tammet admits in interview - honesty issues. Cites attempt to sell mnemonic training courses - Tammet admits. Cites studying Buzan - Tammet admits. Tests synaesthesia (same 4 digit number given three times) - different answers given by Tammet. Conclusion: Foer states explicitly disbelieve. The article is misrepresenting Foer's view. 188.29.185.217 (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw that my edit was reversed. Could you explain why in a little more detail? I think the wording of my edit was balanced and fair. At the moment, the article claims that "[Foer accepts] that Tammet meets the standard definition of a prodigious savant,". That's not the case. Drum guy (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Works section

The Works section is divided into "Non-fiction" and "Non-fiction, Other". That doesn't make much sense. What is it supposed to mean? Nurg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Tammet's Beliefs

Should there be a section mentioning Tammet's religious affiliations. He seems to have associated himself with a number of religious beliefs ranging from Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism and even Islam? 1 2 (Shaun1995 (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC))

Stating something as a fact without proof

Wikipedia has a policy not to state things that can't be proven but in the "Savantism" section, this article states that Tammet holds the European record for reciting pi from memory to 22,514 digits in 5 hours and 9 minutes. There's no way to prove that he didn't secretly slowly and gruadually memorize them earlier, thus not having the record for how fast he can memorize them.Blackbombchu (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you mis-read the passage. The recitation took 5 hours and 9 minutes, which can be verified, as the entire recitation was monitored and even video-taped. As you say, there's no way of knowing how long it took him to memorize pi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.60.8 (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Foer's Evidence — Particularly "Names and Faces" Event

Shouldn't reference to Tammet receiving a gold medal in the 2000 names and faces event be included in the discussion of the Simon Baron-Cohen study? User Oughtprice99 removed it on grounds that it is "contentious and poorly-sourced." Sources are easy to find for this: I used Foer's "Moonwalking with Einstein" (which is well documented and well sourced), and it's easy to find other sources for this all over the web. As for "contentious," how so? It seems to be a simple fact, and clearly a relevant one — to mention that Tammet preformed facial recognition at the level of a 6-8 year old without mentioning that years earlier his performance at the same task ranked among the best IN THE WORLD is a glaring omission.

Note that this particular issue has been discussed several times on this forum, and the only user objecting to its inclusion in the article is Oughtprice99.

Additionally, in the section on Foer's criticisms, Oughtprice99 removed the sentence "Foer's evidence includes Tammet's inconsistency in his synesthetic descriptions of numbers, and online forums in which Tammet discusses his interest in mnemonics." It seems to me that if the article brings up Foer's accusations, it is appropriate to include a brief reference to the evidence he gives (in the same way that the details and methodology of the scientific studies are briefly outlined). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzgoldman (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dzgoldman,

Foer's perspective on Tammet is clearly hostile and minority. Previous discussions including Enchanter, off2riorob, EdHubbard (etc.) reached a consensus that Foer's perspective should be incorporated into the article in a sensitive and marginal way to avoid undue weight. The book's title, author, and viewpoint are already listed in article. Cherry picking specific claims from it in addition would appear to go against this existing editorial consensus.

Specific details of claims from Foer's book concerning Tammet have appeared on some blog pages, but not in any reliable published media reporting. The lack of any secondary sources (and therefore lack of established notability) weighs against their inclusion in a BLP article.

WP:WELLKNOWN

"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Oughtprice99 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Previous discussions including Enchanter, off2riorob, EdHubbard (etc.) reached a consensus..." This is blatantly false. The only posts from those three users currently on this talk page are in relation to Tammet's pi recitation (which is irrelevant to what we are currently discussing). There WAS a discussion in which those three users and yourself argued with others on the importance of Foer, and in that discussion no clear consensus was reached. More importantly, however, that discussion was deleted by off2riob the day a review of the talk page was requested, because off2riob said that he had not read the book in question.

As for the current talk page, as any user can see, the overwhelming consensus is that Foer's claims merit more attention. The only user who persistently argues against this is you (Oughtprice99).

For example, you claim that Foer's perspective is "hostile." Nobody else on this board feels that way, and you yourself have not provided evidence. In fact, earlier you argued (incorrectly, I believe) that: "Foer's chapter specifically discounts the likelihood that Tammet has 'faked' anything," which sounds like the opposite of hostile. So which is it?

As for discussion of Foer's claims in "reliable third-party sources," there is obviously the New York Times review that the article quotes (note that the review doesn't dismiss Foer's claims as false, but simply says that they aren't important) and this, from the Spectator: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2012/02/interview-josh-foer-and-the-persistence-of-memory/. The book itself has been discussed in the Washington Post, The Oprah Magazine, Discover Magazine, and Men's Journal.

Finally, what about the names-and-faces issue? Yes, this is discussed in Foer's book, but it's also public knowledge that is easily verifiable and source-able. Is this not relevant and important information? Dzgoldman (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Dzgoldman,

Tammet's own books have been reviewed or written about in many reliable media publications, but are rarely - if ever - used exclusively to contribute to this article. Wiki's BLP rules argue that any allegation or incident requires "multiple reliable third-party sources" (not public knowledge, which is unencyclopedic).

The NYT review calls Foer's claims a "misstep". Ed Hubbard, who studied Tammet in person and has previously commented on this page, has also put Foer's perspective into context.

The article you link to does not cite any of the claims you wanted to add to the article, but repeats what the article already presently states. Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You aren't addressing the real issues here: it's already been established that Foer's viewpoint should be included on the page. The point now is that if it's to be included, there should be some mention (even if it's just one sentence) of what the actual content of Foer's speculations about Tammet were (beyond just the mere fact that he had speculations about Tammet). The clear consensus on this talk page is that it's far too vague as it stands right now; you seem to be the only one willing to defend its vagueness (see, for example, the "Seeking Consensus (Foer Viewpoint)" thread that you yourself started).

Anyway, you still aren't addressing the names and faces issue. As others have pointed out, one needn't rely on Foer for this one — it is a simple fact, and it can be easily verified on the world memory champion website. Dzgoldman (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Dzgoldman,

Wikipedia isn't a forum for "addressing issues", decided by a show of hands - it's an encyclopedia governed by strict rules regarding the editing of BLP and other articles. The current paragraph clearly states Foer's minority position (it is unsupported by any of the researchers who have actually studied Tammet under scientific conditions) as well as its reception in media reporting (a "misstep"). Foer's speculation *is* speculation - his own text claims that he cannot be sure of anything about Tammet except that he considers him to be very bright.

Wikipedia BLP rules do not allow the inclusion of "public knowledge" or claimed "simple facts". That's original research. What's required are multiple, reliable third-party published sources that can establish the notability of any specific claim.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

By "addressing issues," I clearly just meant "acknowledging the thing that I brought up." Why do you feel that Tammet's performance at the 2000 names and faces event doesn't merit inclusion? Is it not relevant, notable, and easily sourced and verifiable? In fact, isn't mentioning his poor performance on a facial recognition test without mentioning his exceptional performance years earlier a blatant omission?Dzgoldman (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP encyclopedic articles require multiple, reliable third-party published sources that can establish the notability of any specific claim.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy. Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided."

I have reported to BLP Noticeboard.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oughtprice99 (talk · contribs) you have created a Single-purpose account for this article since 2011 with approximately 150 edits. Why?

is not it obvious? This user is vehemently fighting to make the article Tammet friendly. Deleting and reverting any edit that is ot favorable to Tammet.

including distorting the piece of Foer completely! (As if Foer has some slight comment on the subject....)

also bullying via oderator notifications, who are not always updated on how distorted the page is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.204.73 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

^Amen Dzgoldman (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Further Source for "alternative story"

"Daniel Tammet: the Boy with the Incredible Story" By Lili Marlene ISBN: 9781301533084 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.118.83 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a self-published book: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/288635 This certainly doesn't meet WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.150.202 (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Daniel Tammet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant_syndrome/savant_profiles/daniel_tammet
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141028044739/http://www.ox.ac.uk:80/media/news_stories/2004/040315_1.html to http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2004/040315_1.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110120105840/http://www.cbc.ca:80/video/ to http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/George_Stroumboulopoulos_Tonight/Season_5/1274049162/ID=12380130343

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Categorization in competing categories?

This article is categorized into two competing WP categories (Category:People on the autism spectrum and Category:People with Asperger syndrome). While it is true that a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome (AS) now falls within the diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder, I doubt that the categories are intended to share all the individual subjects with diagnosed AS within both categories. In fact, the Category:People with Asperger syndrome states that "This category is for famous people who were diagnosed with Asperger syndrome" implying that those with AS needn't be included in the newer Category:People on the autism spectrum. Because the subject was diagnosed with AS and not ASD, I will remove the article's categorization within the Category:People on the autism spectrum to make the article and the category more accurate. Revert if consensus desires.2001:558:6008:3B:385B:E88D:95AE:2B57 (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniel Tammet. 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/20150923233610/http://www.editions-iconoclaste.fr/spip.php?article1971 to http://www.editions-iconoclaste.fr/spip.php?article1971
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923233610/http://www.editions-iconoclaste.fr/spip.php?article1971 to http://www.editions-iconoclaste.fr/spip.php?article1971

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) 09:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Christianity categories

There are a couple of Christianity categories included in the article, but there are no references to his religious beliefs in the article text, nor citations supporting the categories.—ukexpat (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Notability

This article is a bit confusing and muddled. From what I can tell his chief notability is due to his savantism, something to do with his memory, but the lede mostly just talks about that he wrote some autobiographies detailing his Aspergers Syndrome. Can we make it a bit clearer how he became notable? Ashmoo (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)