Talk:Camille Marino

Contested deletion
sorry, i was trying to figure out how to put in a footnote. this article should be finished and fully cited shortly.

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because I have added the citations demonstrating that this individual has been of newsworthy importance for several years, in fact, setting a legal precedent in Florida in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwriter45 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Article does not meet NPOV criteria
Clearly, this article does not meet the NPOV standards and should be considered for extensive re-writing on deletion (I'm not sure it meets noteworthy guidelines either). Ghostwriter45 appears to be either very close to Marino, or Marino herself. Issues that need addressing include: - Terming Marino a "political prisoner" - definitely suggests the authors POV - The phrase "animal abusers" for researchers is more POV - Using an animal rights activist blogger as "an investigative journalist" in her defence of not being part of a hate group is ridiculous. The article is basically suggesting SPLC is not more credible than Will Potter - There is no evidence provided that the University of Florida arranged to have Marino extradited (it certainly isn't in the Gainsville Sun article referenced) - Marino was not arrested for Best's words (as suggested), she was arrested for sending the link in an email to O'Leary

In short, this article is flawed, breaks the Wikipedia policy on NPOV, and should be considered for full re-writing or deletion. London prophet (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Insight to NPOV Issue
While individual research does not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia, I wanted to provide some to enlighten the discussion of the POV of the article. The case discussed in New Mexico as "First Amendment Issues" was regarding the subject of this article violating a Protection Order for harassing a former colleague. See Best v. Marino, 2017-NMCA-073, 404 P.3d 450. The New Mexico Court of Appeals did, in fact, overturn part of the subject's restrictions to access the internet, in that they were an overbroad restriction of First Amendment Rights. However, the case focused on reaffirming the subject's conviction for violating the Protection Order, by harassing, stalking, and "abus[ing]" her former colleague. Id. ¶ 4.

These issues should be neutrally outlined in the current article, by citation of proper sources. The current statement is a biased point of view. Zkidwiki (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)