Talk:Ann Diamond

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ann Diamond. 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/20110608191049/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0010883 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0010883

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest and Promotional Concerns

I would like to raise a potential conflict of interest regarding the Ann Diamond article.

The page was originally created in 2009 by user Winniez46, who is associated with a Montreal-based web development business offering professional website design. This suggests that the article may have been created as part of a broader personal branding or promotional effort for the subject.

Subsequent editing has been carried out primarily by users SequenceDancer and StarTrekker, whose edit histories appear to focus on promoting or defending the subject’s narrative.

Concerns include:

• Heavy reliance on the subject’s personal website (anndiamond.ca) as a source.
• Inclusion of extraordinary personal claims (e.g., psychic programs, “subpersonalities,” unverifiable trauma history) without independent third-party references.
• Lack of coverage from reliable, secondary sources that would demonstrate notability.

Given this pattern, I recommend:

• A review of the article for neutral tone and promotional content,
• Careful scrutiny of source reliability and the use of self-referencing,
• Considering whether tags for COI, NPOV, or notability are appropriate.

Thank you to any experienced editors who can review and advise on how best to address these issues. —BattlefortheMind (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

"a ... web development business offering professional website design" is not evidence—nor even suggestive—of CoI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

COI and NPOV tags added

Added {{COI}} and {{NPOV}} tags to the article (August 2025) following concerns raised here, at COIN, and at NPOVN. Further discussion welcome. —BattlefortheMind (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@BattlefortheMind, could you explain in a little more detail about what your concerns are?

For example, I see this sentence in the article:

• "In 2006, Diamond published a memoir, My Cold War, where she claims to be a victim of secret mind-control experiments, allegedly sponsored by the American CIA"

and I think "Huh, it sounds like she's got some serious psychiatric problems, but it's probably true that she claimed this in the book, and the Wikipedia article isn't saying her claims are correct – only that she claimed it".

The cited source says: "In her 2006 memoir, My Cold War (republished in 2008 under the title A Certain Girl), Ann Diamond recounts her childhood experiences in Montréal as an unwitting participant in secret mind-control experiments, allegedly sponsored by the American CIA."

Is that the sort of sentence you're concerned about? Do you think that making her look like she has a psychiatric problem (I assume I'm not the only person who reacts this way) is a sign of self-promotion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. My concern isn’t whether the article should mention that she claimed these things in her books—it absolutely should.

The issue is that the article as it stands relies almost entirely on her own memoirs, her personal website, and a handful of self-promotional interviews. There are very few (if any) independent, secondary sources to establish notability, balance, or whether these extraordinary claims have ever been corroborated or critically examined.

As a result, the page reads less like an encyclopedic biography and more like an unchallenged platform for a highly personal narrative. That may not be intentional, but when a page is built mostly from one person’s own accounts, it crosses into self-promotion by default.

My concern is not about editorial tone (“making her look unbalanced”); my concern is that the sourcing doesn’t meet WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. Extraordinary claims—especially ones with decades of dispute—need high-quality, independent sources. Right now, they’re largely missing. BattlefortheMind (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@BattlefortheMind, an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim is usually along the lines of "I proved Einstein wrong" or "Trump won the 2020 election" or even "I've scientifically proven that God exists". An extraordinary claim is not "she claims to be a victim of secret mind-control experiments", when she obviously did claim that. Can you identify any sentences that you think are actually extraordinary claims? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying – I agree with you that the sentence you quoted (“she claims to be a victim of secret mind-control experiments”) is fine as written because it’s just reporting what she wrote in her own memoir.

My concern is broader: almost the entire article is built on this same pattern, where the only sources for major biographical and historical claims are Ann Diamond herself – her memoir, her website, and interviews she has given.

There are very few (if any) independent, secondary sources that establish her notability or verify the claims beyond her own narrative. That’s why I raised the issue: the effect is that the article ends up reading like a self-promotional biography rather than an encyclopedia entry.

A couple of examples:

The sections about her alleged involvement in “psychic programs” and “subpersonalities” appear to be entirely based on her own accounts, with no independent verification.

Much of the career/recognition content relies on her own website as a source rather than reviews or third-party coverage.

I’m not disputing that she made these claims; I’m saying the page, as it stands, relies almost exclusively on them. In terms of Wikipedia policy, that seems like a WP:COI and WP:RS problem that goes far beyond a single sentence.

I think a review of the sourcing and page history would be useful, because without more independent coverage the article risks being more of a self-published narrative than a balanced biography. BattlefortheMind (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is about editors, not about content. Having the page rely almost exclusively on sources that the subject wrote is not a COI problem. (It can be several other problems, but not a COI problem.)
• We don't need a lot of independent sources to justify having a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. The Canadian Encyclopedia presumably counts as one. In some cases, one is sufficient (the Dictionary of National Biography is commonly given as the example of a sufficient single source).
• Sentences like "Diamond has stated that she has a sub-personality..." and "she claims to be a victim of secret mind-control experiments..." don't require "independent verification" of whether she actually has any sub-personalities (or if that's actually a thing in the real world) or whether she really was a victim of secret mind-control experiments. The claim we are presenting is "She said stuff", and nobody is disputing that she said this stuff. This therefore fully complies with WP:RS, because RS is all about whether the cited source (e.g., her saying something) can support the claim in the Wikipedia article (e.g., "She said something").

Have you looked for other sources about her? The most straightforward path towards improving an article that overly relies on non-independent sources is to find better ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The main concern here isn’t about whether “she said it” – it’s about due weight and the absence of independent, secondary sources.

At present the article functions almost entirely as a platform for the subject’s own extraordinary claims (e.g., meeting “people with total videographic recall,” analyzing a parent’s medical condition at age 11 and recalling it perfectly 40 years later, and being a victim of secret MKULTRA experiments). These are not just ordinary biographical details – they are fringe, self‑promotional stories that have never been covered or validated by independent reliable sources.

Per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, we should not be amplifying these claims without any third‑party context. If the only material available comes from the subject’s own books, blogs, and interviews, then the article should be drastically trimmed to reflect that lack of coverage. Otherwise, it gives Wikipedia’s voice to unverifiable conspiracy theories.

If there are no independent sources that discuss the subject’s notability beyond her own accounts, the alternative is to consider merging or redirecting rather than hosting an article that is essentially self‑published promotion.

Independent Sources to Counterbalance

These don’t need to mention her specifically. They establish that there is a serious, well-documented history of MKULTRA and memory science without her in it, showing her claims are fringe and not part of the main record.

On MKULTRA / Allan Memorial (none mention her)

Alfred W. McCoy – A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (Metropolitan, 2006)

Dominic Streatfeild – Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control (Hodder & Stoughton, 2007)

Anne Collins – In the Sleep Room: The Story of the CIA Brainwashing Experiments in Canada (Key Porter, 1988)

On Memory Reliability and False Memory

Elizabeth Loftus & Katherine Ketcham – The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse (St. Martin’s Press, 1994)

Schacter, Daniel L. – The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers (Houghton Mifflin, 2001)

BattlefortheMind (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

But, @BattlefortheMind, that stuff isn't actually in the article. You said At present the article functions almost entirely as a platform for the subject’s own extraordinary claims (e.g., meeting “people with total videographic recall,” analyzing a parent’s medical condition at age 11 and recalling it perfectly 40 years later, and being a victim of secret MKULTRA experiments).

But none of those claims are in the Wikipedia article. Open the article and take a moment with ⌘F. None of those words are in the article. There's nothing about any kind of recall, whether partial or total, videographic or otherwise. The word people isn't even in the article. There's nothing about remembering a parent's medical condition and remembering it later (though that isn't actually unusual). MKUltra does not appear in the article text (though it does in the title of an external source). None of the stuff you're worrying about is actually in this Wikipedia article.

When we write that someone has made claims, we don't need the truth of those claims to be covered or validated by independent reliable sources. We just need to support the fact that she made claims, not that her claims are true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow‑up. You’re right that those exact phrases aren’t currently in the article text. My point is that the underlying problem remains: the article rests almost entirely on the subject’s own writings and interviews, with little or no independent secondary sourcing.

Whether it’s mind‑control claims, autobiographical anecdotes, or other personal narratives, the issue is that these self‑published claims dominate the coverage because there is no significant third‑party material about her.

Without independent reliable sources, the page effectively becomes a catalog of whatever the subject has said over the years. That may comply with “she said it,” but it still fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP due weight because there’s no external notability.

For that reason, I believe this is not just a matter of trimming—it’s a question of whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s inclusion standards at all. Unless reliable, independent coverage can be found, this is a candidate for AfD or redirect.BattlefortheMind (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@BattlefortheMind, I'm feeling frustrated, because you keep making claims about what's in the article that have no apparent connection to the article. So here are the first 10 sentences in the article, numbered for your convenience:

1. Ann Diamond (born 11 April 1951 in Montreal) is a Canadian poet, short story writer, and novelist.
2. She was the winner of the 1994 Hugh MacLennan Prize for Fiction from the Quebec Writers' Federation.
3. Diamond was born 11 April 1951 in Montreal.
4. She received a Bachelor of Arts from Concordia University before studying creative writing at Goddard College.
5. Diamond's first book, Lil, was published in 1977.
6. Her second book, A Nun's Diary, was adapted for theatre by Robert Lepage (retitled Echo) and presented in Montreal and Toronto at Theatre Passe Muraille.
7. Her third book of poetry, Terrorist Letters, was published in 1992.
8. Diamond released her first novel, Mona's Dance, in 1989, followed by short story collections Snakebite in 1989 and Evil Eye in 1991.
9. Her narrative style has been called "distinctive" as it "blur[s] ... realism and surrealism"; and her fiction also tends to "feature female characters burdened by painful relationships."
10. Evil Eye won the 1994 Hugh MacLennan Prize for Fiction.

Please identify, by number, exactly which of these ten sentences constitute "mind‑control claims, autobiographical anecdotes, or other personal narratives", or, indeed, sentences that would be generally out of place for a biography of any author. For example, looking at the first sentence, I see:

1. Mind-control isn't mentioned, there is no autobiographical information (and there's supposed to be biographical information), there are no anecdotes, nothing is particularly personal, and there are no narratives. In fact, it's exactly the kind of WP:FIRSTSENTENCE that you'd expect for any author.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed AfD nomination text

Nomination:

Ann Diamond fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BIO due to a complete lack of significant, independent, reliable sources.

The current article consists almost entirely of the subject’s own self‑published claims (books, blogs, interviews). There is no substantial third‑party coverage establishing notability.

Key issues:

No independent sources: The article relies almost exclusively on material written by or directly quoting the subject. There is no in‑depth coverage from newspapers, magazines, peer‑reviewed studies, or books by other authors.

Extraordinary claims without context: The article presents fringe, self‑promotional claims (e.g., secret MKULTRA experiments, meeting “people with videographic recall,” medical assessments as a child, etc.) with no independent verification. This fails WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP standards.

Notability: The subject does not pass the General Notability Guideline. A biography should not exist solely on the basis of self-published work.

Without independent reliable sources, this page functions primarily as a platform for self‑promotion.

I therefore recommend deletion, or failing that, merging/redirecting to a broader topic (e.g., MKULTRA in popular culture) until such time as independent sources exist.BattlefortheMind (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that if you'd like the AFD nomination to end with deletion, then you remove the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions from this draft. Specifically:

• Ann Diamond fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BIO due to a complete lack of significant, independent, reliable sources. → except for The Canadian Encyclopedia, which is a notable, independent, non-primary reliable source with significant coverage of the subject. You'd be better off truthfully acknowledging its existence, and instead rephrase this as "only one" or "only a few" (I can't read all the sources online).
• The current article consists almost entirely of the subject’s own self‑published claims (books, blogs, interviews). → This isn't true (The Canadian Encyclopedia was not self-published by Ann Diamond; the book from McGill–Queen's University Press was not self-published by Ann Diamond, the Quebec Writers Foundation website is not self-published by Ann Diamond, the CTV News television program is not self-published by Ann Diamond...), but even if it were, this is a problem that can be solved by clicking the [Edit] button, because Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. You should omit this statement entirely.
• There is no substantial third‑party coverage establishing notability. → except for The Canadian Encyclopedia.
• No independent sources: The article relies almost exclusively on material written by or directly quoting the subject. → Sources do not stop being independent just because they quote someone. Wikipedia:Independent sources say things like "Mr Boyfriend said 'I'm innocent! I didn't kill her!'" or "The CEO said 'My annual bonus depends on raising profits'." What makes a source be independent is that the source is not owned, controlled, or beholden to the subject. If a source quotes the subject of the article – even at length, even credulously or gullibly, even in an interview – that does not have any bearing whatsoever on whether the source is independent of the subject.
• There is no in‑depth coverage from newspapers, magazines, peer‑reviewed studies, or books by other authors. → So what's The Canadian Encyclopedia now? 300 words of chopped liver? Wikipedia:One hundred words directly about the subject is a standard that some editors prefer. I prefer more than 100 words, but even I wouldn't require more than 300 from a single source. Editors who insist on much more than that usually turn out to be POV pushers or having an WP:IDONTLIKEIT moment.
• Extraordinary claims without context: The article presents fringe, self‑promotional claims (e.g., secret MKULTRA experiments, meeting “people with videographic recall,” medical assessments as a child, etc.) with no independent verification. This fails WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP standards. → This would be concerning, except that (a) none of that is actually in the article, and (b) "independent verification" (e.g., that she actually was a subject of MKUltra testing) is not actually required by Wikipedia's standards, because the article does not say that "she was". It only says "she claimed that she was".
• Notability: The subject does not pass the General Notability Guideline. → WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR are more relevant guidelines.
• A biography should not exist solely on the basis of self-published work → I agree with you, but it's a pointless point, because only 2 out of the 7 currently cited sources are actually self-published by anyone, and only the last one is self-published by the subject herself.
• Without independent reliable sources, this page functions primarily as a platform for self‑promotion → This article currently cites five WP:Independent reliable sources, so obviously the first half of that is wrong. Additionally, self-promotion is when the subject of the article edits the Wikipedia article, or pays/gets someone else to do it for her. Unless you have evidence (not just speculation) that the author is trying to control this page, then you should not accuse her of self-promotion. I suspect that what you meant to say was something more like "Without sources investigating and debunking her conspiracy theory garbage/psychiatric delusions, then I worry that readers might read this article and believe her nonsense, even though almost none of her nonsense is in the article, and nothing in the Wikipedia article says that any of her claims are true."
• I therefore recommend deletion, or failing that, merging/redirecting to a broader topic (e.g., MKULTRA in popular culture) until such time as independent sources exist. → Again, independent sources already exist, because five of them are cited in the article. And why would you merge an article about a poet into MKUltra#In popular culture?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up clarification:

After reviewing feedback, I want to clarify that while there are a couple of independent sources (notably The Canadian Encyclopedia and a brief CTV segment), these do not amount to the significant, sustained, multiple independent sources required by WP:GNG.

The Canadian Encyclopedia has about 300 words of coverage – a single short entry – and there is no evidence of recurring or substantial coverage in newspapers, magazines, academic journals, or books by other authors. This level of attention does not establish lasting encyclopedic notability.

In the absence of such coverage, the article is necessarily built around the subject’s own work and interviews, which gives disproportionate weight to a fringe figure whose main claims (about mind control, etc.) have never been addressed by serious sources.

For these reasons, I believe the subject fails WP:GNG and recommend deletion or redirect.BattlefortheMind (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

So a professionally run encyclopedia decided to include her, but she doesn't belong in an encyclopedia? Did you read what you wrote?

Also, the article is not "built around the subject’s own work and interviews". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

“Since there hasn’t been agreement on the notability/sourcing, I’ve opened an AfD so the wider community can weigh in.”BattlefortheMind (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Ann Diamond does not meet WP:GNG.

While there are a few independent sources (notably a brief entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia and a short TV segment), these do not provide significant, sustained coverage of her life or work.

The remaining references are largely limited to passing mentions, directory-style listings, and primary/self-published sources (e.g., her own blogs, interviews, or small-press materials). There is no evidence of in-depth secondary analysis or criticism of her contributions as an author.

Without multiple substantial, independent, and reliable secondary sources, the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. I recommend deletion, or redirecting to a more general topic (e.g., MKULTRA in popular culture or Canadian literature) until such sources exist.BattlefortheMind (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

A small press is not self-publishing. Lulu.com is self-publishing. A small business owned and operated by someone else, who decides to pay an author for the privilege of trying to sell the author's works, is not self-publishing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

"concerns raised here, at COIN, and at NPOVN."

@BattlefortheMind: It is not sufficient to make such a statement. Specific links are needed; please provide them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Special:WhatLinksHere for this article and the editor's own contributions, I find only these two discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 8#h-Possible COI: Ann Diamond article-20250801202000
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Heading: Possible Conflict of Interest — Ann Diamond article

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Follow‑up

Thanks for the feedback so far. Just to clarify, my concern isn’t only who created the article originally—it’s that the page still relies very heavily on self-published material (her own memoirs and website) and offers very little coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. Under Wikipedia policies on notability (WP:N), reliable sourcing (WP:RS), and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), a biography built mostly on primary sources and self-promotion runs into serious problems. Could experienced editors please review whether this article now meets the sourcing and notability standards, or whether tags for COI / NPOV / Notability are appropriate? BattlefortheMind (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Just so you know, the policy position is that an article built primarily on primary sources is at risk for violating NPOV. However, it's not an automatic thing. The citations matter only to the extent that they affect the article's content. If "Smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer" is neutral when followed by a citation to a good medical textbook, then that sentence is still neutral if it's followed by an activist website, a tobacco company's website, or nothing at all.

If you are concerned that readers might click on the sources and end up reading the Wrong™ websites, then – well, readers basically never read any sources. Given the page views, we'd be lucky if even one person per month read one of the cited sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, so the proud standard here is: “We might mislead someone, but luckily hardly anyone will ever read it.” Brilliant. A whole encyclopedia resting on the hope that its own content goes unnoticed — that’s a bold vision for quality control. Congratulations, Wikipedia, you’ve finally found a way to make “nobody reads it” sound like a defence. My question to you is What Are You Doing???BattlefortheMind (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

What am I doing? Trying to figure out why you've been arguing about content that is not in the Wikipedia article. We won't mislead any readers about – to quote your comment above – '(e.g., meeting “people with total videographic recall,” analyzing a parent’s medical condition at age 11 and recalling it perfectly 40 years later, and being a victim of secret MKULTRA experiments)' – because none of that is in the Wikipedia article.

Please read the article at Ann Diamond. If you find any of the following words in it:

• total
• videographic
• recall
• parent
• medical
• condition
• age 11
• MKULTRA

then please copy and paste the whole sentence in which those words appear in reply to this comment. If not, maybe stop claiming that the article will mislead anyone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

One reader checked. One reader found the mismatch. That’s 100%. “Almost no one will look” is not quality control—it’s negligence. —BattlefortheMind (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

What did you check, and what was the mismatch? Please provide an exact quotation from the Wikipedia article. Note: I am not looking for "The Wikipedia article does not say anything about total videographic recall, but a source that is cited mentions that". I am looking for "The Wikipedia article says [exact quote here], and the cited source says [exact quote here]." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the discussion. I can see how the process applies here, even if I remain concerned about consistency. In other biographies — for example, Robert Malone, Sucharit Bhakdi, Andrew Wakefield, Didier Raoult — Wikipedia records both notable achievements and later, well-covered controversies. I’ll step back from this one now, but I appreciate the lesson in how these decisions are made.BattlefortheMind (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)