This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lauren Book article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This needs to be discussed. A single-purpose account added all of that content a few weeks ago. Is any of it true? I don't know the source "Florida Bulldog": is it reliable? What about "Sunshine State News"? This looks like garbage to me. – Muboshgu ( talk) 04:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
How you feel about the person at the center of the controversy does not detract from the fact that Lauren Book is at the center of controversy. The more important question here is why you have a problem with posting legitimate news articles? Both Florida Bulldog and Sunshine State News are legitimate political-focused news outlets. It seems to me a certain someone doesn't WANT these controversies shared. Obviously, the entire "controversies" section was removed at some point by someone with a previously unused account, so someone wanted that info gone. Implying a person having a "single purpose account" somehow lacks the ability to share legitimate news articles merely shows you have confirmation bias. UltimaHolyFlare ( talk) 18:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Your feelings on the tone of an article does not invalidate valid references. Also, you're accusing me of having "an axe to grind" for posting mainstream media resources that question the ethics of a public official, something rather common in the world of politics. You made an accusation, I responded to it. I do have to question why a person who typically only edits sports-related articles suddenly has an interest in the Wikipedia page of a South Florida politician. Controversial policies and questions of ethics are commonplace in politics. Should I go edit out Anthony Weiner's email controversy, for example, because I don't like the tone of some mainstream media outlets reporting it? To use your own arguments, merely reporting Lauren Book as an "abuse victim" and "child victim advocate" while ignoring the other ways she has made news is slanted in its own right. The websites mentioned are legitimate media outlets with large readerships. Now, I have undone your changes, and if you try this again I WILL report your profile to the administration of this site. UltimaHolyFlare ( talk) 00:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, you have clearly proven you have a personal agenda here. Every source is legitimate news. As promised, I have reported you for persistent vandalism. UltimaHolyFlare ( talk) 06:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
– Muboshgu ( talk) 23:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
First, many convicted people were convicted in a court of law only to have their convictions overturned. Second, her policies are directed at everyone on the registry, not just "sexual predators." Florida makes a distinction between "sexual offenders" and "sexual predators." Third, your personal assessment of which news is valid is inaccurate, as you have even deleted the sources from larger resources listed. It has been obviously for the entire month your mission here is to allow only positive news on this page. You've consistently made your personal agenda clear. UltimaHolyFlare ( talk) 02:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The articles referenced are all legitimate news sources. Having a personal opinion about the content doesn't invalidate legitimate news sources, especially where ethical concerns have been raised. It is becoming obvious there is an agenda at work to keep these ethical concerns from being reported as they have been in the local South Florida media for many years. UltimaHolyFlare ( talk) 02:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
What about the n.u.d.e.s photos of her?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.78.146 ( talk)
I can't believe I have to spell this out, but I do, because this keeps coming up again and again. Her nanny was convicted of sexual assault. Therefore, it's not a mere "allegation". We don't say she "claims" she was assaulted, we say she was assaulted. If you need further proof than NPR (as though they would let a claim like that go without verifying it...), check the database yourself. [2] The name of the nanny is "Waldina Flores". Really, that Sun Sentinel article should be enough proof. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
This merge was proposed by Curbon7, and I agree. Primarily, my concern was that the original article was the result of paid editing, but even beyond that; it is not notable enough for it's own standalone article. I don't think there is any reason that this article should not simply be a subsection of Book's article. If no one objects, I plan to perform the merger myself by 10/31/2021. Thanks! Rockstone [Send me a message!] 01:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lauren Book article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This needs to be discussed. A single-purpose account added all of that content a few weeks ago. Is any of it true? I don't know the source "Florida Bulldog": is it reliable? What about "Sunshine State News"? This looks like garbage to me. – Muboshgu ( talk) 04:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
How you feel about the person at the center of the controversy does not detract from the fact that Lauren Book is at the center of controversy. The more important question here is why you have a problem with posting legitimate news articles? Both Florida Bulldog and Sunshine State News are legitimate political-focused news outlets. It seems to me a certain someone doesn't WANT these controversies shared. Obviously, the entire "controversies" section was removed at some point by someone with a previously unused account, so someone wanted that info gone. Implying a person having a "single purpose account" somehow lacks the ability to share legitimate news articles merely shows you have confirmation bias. UltimaHolyFlare ( talk) 18:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Your feelings on the tone of an article does not invalidate valid references. Also, you're accusing me of having "an axe to grind" for posting mainstream media resources that question the ethics of a public official, something rather common in the world of politics. You made an accusation, I responded to it. I do have to question why a person who typically only edits sports-related articles suddenly has an interest in the Wikipedia page of a South Florida politician. Controversial policies and questions of ethics are commonplace in politics. Should I go edit out Anthony Weiner's email controversy, for example, because I don't like the tone of some mainstream media outlets reporting it? To use your own arguments, merely reporting Lauren Book as an "abuse victim" and "child victim advocate" while ignoring the other ways she has made news is slanted in its own right. The websites mentioned are legitimate media outlets with large readerships. Now, I have undone your changes, and if you try this again I WILL report your profile to the administration of this site. UltimaHolyFlare ( talk) 00:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, you have clearly proven you have a personal agenda here. Every source is legitimate news. As promised, I have reported you for persistent vandalism. UltimaHolyFlare ( talk) 06:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
– Muboshgu ( talk) 23:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
First, many convicted people were convicted in a court of law only to have their convictions overturned. Second, her policies are directed at everyone on the registry, not just "sexual predators." Florida makes a distinction between "sexual offenders" and "sexual predators." Third, your personal assessment of which news is valid is inaccurate, as you have even deleted the sources from larger resources listed. It has been obviously for the entire month your mission here is to allow only positive news on this page. You've consistently made your personal agenda clear. UltimaHolyFlare ( talk) 02:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The articles referenced are all legitimate news sources. Having a personal opinion about the content doesn't invalidate legitimate news sources, especially where ethical concerns have been raised. It is becoming obvious there is an agenda at work to keep these ethical concerns from being reported as they have been in the local South Florida media for many years. UltimaHolyFlare ( talk) 02:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
What about the n.u.d.e.s photos of her?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.78.146 ( talk)
I can't believe I have to spell this out, but I do, because this keeps coming up again and again. Her nanny was convicted of sexual assault. Therefore, it's not a mere "allegation". We don't say she "claims" she was assaulted, we say she was assaulted. If you need further proof than NPR (as though they would let a claim like that go without verifying it...), check the database yourself. [2] The name of the nanny is "Waldina Flores". Really, that Sun Sentinel article should be enough proof. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
This merge was proposed by Curbon7, and I agree. Primarily, my concern was that the original article was the result of paid editing, but even beyond that; it is not notable enough for it's own standalone article. I don't think there is any reason that this article should not simply be a subsection of Book's article. If no one objects, I plan to perform the merger myself by 10/31/2021. Thanks! Rockstone [Send me a message!] 01:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)