Talk:Gwen Shamblin Lara

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is currently undergoing a peer review.

First admin talk on frequent vandalism and NPOV

The most recent revision removed any discussion of the controversy surrounding Ms. Shamblin and removed articles from reputable sources detailing the controversy. In fact, the current article is not from a neutral POV at all. I would prefer to see this article reverted to a more neutral POV. Anne 13:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Anne[reply]

I agree. Given that this anon has made similar edits on two other occasions (see history)), and no other edits to WP, as well as no explanation or edit summary, I think it's safe to assume that they have an agenda to push, and it's not NPOV. :) I reverted the edit. If they or anyone else would like to question this, please do so here before making similar edits. pfctdayelise 16:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with User:Pfctdayelise the current version is much more neutral and better cited than the one before the revert. DES ^(talk) 16:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

while some additional sources are needed, it looks to me as if most of the factual statemes, including the more controversial ones (the child abuse issues) have been reasnably well sourced. i think the BLP tag cvould be removed. DES ^(talk) 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to include more information that has been reported in The Tennesseean, a local paper covering Remnant Church. Sadly, much of the best reporting from this paper is now not reachable by the internet - one has to pay to get articles from their archives. Is it OK to cite and link to articles that are pay-per-veiw?Efkeathley 13:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok to cite sources that are not online at all. In this case, the best approach would probably be to cite the paper's name, publication date, and page number, and then additionally give "Available on pat-per-view at <link>". Note that if you have a library that has back issues or microfilm/fiche of this paper, it may not be required for you to pay to get the sources. DES ^(talk) 14:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. I'm in Georgia and my library doesn't have these papers. I have found a way to get to the articles I need without paying anyhow. For some reason, if you search The Tennessean's "archive" page directly they ask you to pay, but hitting the articles through google allows one in directly. I have no idea why they're set up that way, but they are!Efkeathley 17:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Weird -- it may be that google grabbed those links while they were "open" and in "closing" them the paper simply deleted links to them. In any case, I sugest that your citation include the print info if possible, as well as the URL, because that url might go away or ecome pay-per-view in the future, whoknows. Whisl a print citation can always be verified by anyone willing to take some trouble. Anyway, inmproving the sourcing is always good. DES ^(talk) 18:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen's birthdate

I've bunnyhunted every source I could on this page, but nowhere can I found mention of Shamblin's birthdate. In grand Southern tradition, she seems to be hiding how old she is. If anyone's looking to put their mark on this article, they could easily do so by being the first person to find a confirmed source for her birthday and birth year! Efkeathley 30 March 2007

Generally there is no vital need to include the precise birthdate of a living person, and in the age of identity theft, since a birthdate is often considered a significant piece of identifying information many people have good reason not to publish their birthdates. See WP:BLP. The year of birth is sufficient to put the person in historical context, unless for some reason the precise date is particularly significant for a particular person. DES ^(talk) 21:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I thought the tag at the bottom stating "Year of birth missing" meant that a birth date was needed; I understand about the ID theft thing though and have stopped searching for this. Efkeathley 04 April 2007

Prophecy

The last paragraph in the church section now touches on Gwen's status as a maybe-prophet. There are more sources and information on this topic, but I am unsure as how to fit them in the article. Should the topic of prophecy stay with the church bit, and that section relabled as "Remnant Church and Prophecy", or broken out altogether in a section called "Gwen as Prophet"? Efkeathley 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weigh Down Vandalised the page today (Or did they?)

The user that deleted the information on the Spirit Watch website - 64.221.243.178 - is an employee of Weigh Down. The evidence of the email addy associated with this ISP can be found at http://osdir.com/ml/mail.spam.spamcop.help/2002-09/msg00654.html can I get an admin to block? Efkeathley 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not normal to block for a single instance of vandalism. If any editor persistantly vandalizes, report the matter on WP:AIV where you will see that only reports of vandalism after a 'last warning" are accepted. I have mentioned that there seems to be a lot of recent vandalizm here over on WP:ANI and asked more people to keep an eye on this. Also, your link is IMO a long way from clear proof that the editor was an employee. DES ^(talk) 21:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have more experience than I, and so you're probably right. If Weigh Down workshop emails were sent by the same ISP as the edit, what are the other possiblities? This isn't a common ISP like the big ones used by comcast or BellSouth for mass accounts. I promise I'm not trying to argue; I just want to know why I might be wrong. I felt sure I had proof, but this might be because of my lack of IT training.Efkeathley 12:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, and that does look suspicious, it merely isn't proof. IPs in both big and small ISPs are often shuffled around, so this may merely mean that someone from the same geographic area as the WD HQ who used the same ISP made the edit. It is about the same as saying "I got a letter from an employee with postmark X, and later I got an unsigned letter with an identical postmark, so an employee must have sent the unsigned letter." Suggestive, but not exactly proof. Most ISPs do not provide static IPs, and if an IP isn't static, it might be reassigned to any other client of the same ISP at any time. In some cases a particular IP range will be restricted to a particular geographic area, in other cases not. Even if the IP is static to a local network owned by WD, it might be available for use by workshop attendees who are not employees. DES ^(talk) 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lesson. My understanding of IP's and ISP's was not complete enough for me to make this accusation, and I withdraw it. You're right; the IP is suggestive, but not proof in of itself of WD employee interference.Efkeathley 17:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image

Please note that Wikipedia policy does not permit non-free images of living people in most cases. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy and Kat Walsh's statement on licensing policies for more information. I have deleted the image again and request that only a freely licensed image be put up in its place. —An gr 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for arbitration

This is a note for Sqwikiclean copied to their user page. Please wait for third party review before making any further edits. I understand your frustration, but there was a raid on the church - every news source cited talks about the raid - and I think we should let the article lie until we can both get some outside input.Efkeathley 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to try to help resolve this issue, but I'm not sure where to begin. Can you each post a proposal for what the text should be? Novalis 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose that a third party possibly rewrite the section on the Josef Smith trial and corporal punishment at Remnant entirely. I have a list of extra (unused) citations at hand if anyone would like them, including some on the evidence at trial. The article gets vandalised a lot, so my defense has involved adding citations whenever this happens. I think all the information currently presented needs to be retained. Some of it should be changed - for instance, Sqwiki mentioned that the tape was an audio recording. I am unsure if Sqwiki's allegation of the article granting undue weight to certain subjects is correct or not. I would like to work towards a compromise on article format while retaining as much current content as possible. I'm also interested in third party opinions about NPOV; I feel that the current article is NPOV, while SqwikiKlean feels that it is not.Efkeathley 17:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see you and SqWikiKlean do the work of writing the article. I am confident that, with a little help, you two can come to an agreement about the text. Novalis 17:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will post my ideas by this time tommorrow. Thank you for your help. We are to post our proposals here on the talk page, and not on the article itself, correct?Efkeathley 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Novalis 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can surely come to an agreement. There should be no problem with controversial content or anyone's POV as long as it is accurately referenced and that additional quotes from the same or similar articles are also allowed to be entered as well. Anyone should be allowed to add references and citations from verifiable and reputable sources to this article about the Smith case? Again, and I must insist, no accurately referenced citation was removed. Nor did I ever remove a single paragraph of information (referenced or not) as previously accused. This misunderstanding is about facts pertaining to accurate use of cited references, and has very little to do with POV beyond that. Just look at my talk page for the "disputed paragraph" and please compare it to the references and the claim that I deleted the entire "raid on the church" statement.SqwikiKlean

The only reason I stopped the above referenced edit was because we were waiting for arbitration. The information you removed previously was about glue sticks, and you had also inserted unrefed info, and a photo you didn't own. You also then ranted on my talk page for some length. What you're arguing now is different from what you were arguing a few days ago. Can we just get past what has happened before and move on with the edits? I agree that only one tape was leaked to the press, and that was an audio tape. This is a good addition. Let us move forward with outside help to change the things in the article that you think are unfair.

Of course, I don't really have a problem with the edit you're mentioning in this section at all. Let's keep that one. However, please stop the kind of edits you were doing before I asked for arbitration, which were quite slanted. I'm also unsure of why you keep ranting on my talk page. Again, the only reason I stopped the edit about the tapes - which I've said before I think was a good idea - was I didn't want to get into an edit war while waiting for help. This is why I asked you to stop and wait.Efkeathley 13:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]