Talk:Gemstone File

Untitled
I stumbled upon this article while researching the alleged "assassin" Thane Cesar, and find that it reads far too much like an advertisement simply delineating and espousing this theory as fact, whereas it should make abundantly clear that this is a narrow conspiracy theory that should not be treated as valid.

I agree that this is a compelling article that presents a technically possible scenario, but the author failed to adequately present it for what it is: a far-fetched theory. I do not consider myself an "expert" in this field (whatever an expert might be I do not precisely know). I would recommend a complete overhaul and revision, with concise explanation of the conspiracy allegations. If a reader is so interested, they can find more in external links and books on this subject of questionable importance. Juvo415 (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I have noted the comments associated with the "Gemstone File" article. My intention is to revise the article so that it conforms to Wikipedia standards. I am a novice to Wikipedia and so I will be making errors as I move along. But I am the best "expert" available on this subject, since I wrote the 1975 article in which the phrase "Gemstone File" first appeared in public.

This rewrite will have to be done in stages, but I will do it as quickly as I can.

Your comments and corrections are always welcome.

I believe the results will be a positive addition to Wikipedia.GemstoneLady 13:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) The phrase brief, undocumented but compelling explanation of worldwide events should omit the reference to "but compelling" for clear NPOV violations (undoubtably untintentional). Compelling is an opinion and gives credence to a rather far-fetched theory, I'm not saying said theory is impossible, clearly its possible based upon the wealth and power of the men, woman and groups that are theoretically involved. But this is an encyclopedia and "compelling" is unencyclopedic. Colin 8 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)