Talk:Lauren Book

"Controversies"
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)
 * Wikipedia is based on policies such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. How I feel about the subject of the article is irrelevant, but I get the sense that you have an axe to grind with her. Read this source and tell me it is objective. It is not. Per BLP, I think I will remove your additions, since you're not defending the content but casting aspersions on my motivations. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 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)
 * WP:RS and WP:NPOV govern references. Sunshine State News is clearly unreliable. Florida Bulldog seems to be a mystery. These are not mainstream sources. They are conservative sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 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)
 * Let's count the items on your personal agenda:
 * Saying she was "allegedly" abused when her abuser was convicted in a court of law
 * Changing "sexual predators" into "people forced to register as "sex offenders""
 * A WP:CSECTION using unreliable sources (like Sunshine State News, that falsely claimed they were associated with CNN) to push your agenda that she's harsh on sex offenders.

– Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Really? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 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 "controversies" section is a textbook example of using poor sources to violate NPOV. Note that the mandatory policy on biographies of living persons requires "strict adherence" to WP:NPOV.  Please do not re-add this section without achieving consensus.  Edit-warring to retain this section or otherwise evading the BLP policy can lead to blocks.  Thank you.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:28, 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)
 * ABC, the Gainesville Sun, and probably New Times Broward Palm Beach are reliable sources but the section needs to be rewritten, so it's only based on reliable sources. Waters.Justin (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

What about the n.u.d.e.s photos of her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.78.146 (talk)
 * , you mean the photos that are apparently fake? The attempt to extort her? Maybe can be added to the personal life section. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask the above question about the photos. The above anonymous IP address falsified by signature and date stamp, as you can see at this edit. . The edit was actually made December 8, 2021, not December 1, 2017. I removed the falsified name and date. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Lauren's Kids into Lauren Book
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)
 * I support that. The article's creator made it in one edit and is blocked as a sockpuppet. Most of the info on that page is in this one already or not noteworthy enough to merge. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * -- think it's fine for me to just do it now rather than wait until the 31st? Thanks! -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  04:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as likely that anyone is going to object. Ten days is more notice than needed. Really none is required. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * -- thanks, done! -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)