Talk:Rhonda Roland Shearer

Stinky Wikipeida article
There is something stinky about this whole article. It is written like an advertisement for Rhonda Roland Shearer. I'm not sure if I should edit the article and remove all of the obvious propaganda that has been taken directly from Rhonda Roland Shearer's website OR if I should nominate this article for deletion. I can see, for the life of me, how Rhonda Roland Shearer qualifies for her own article. Also, the things that she is known for are so obscure and strange that they are NOT encyclopedic. I believe that this whole article is an example of a company (Rhonda Roland Shearer's company) using Wikipedia to promote itself, which violates Wikipedia policy. Also, there has been a news report that Rhonda Roland Shearer has started a petition to have the 11 year old boy prosecuted. I believe that Rhonda Roland Shearer is using Wikipedia to promote her own little campaign against an 11 year old boy. Talk about stinky journalism! This article is an example of how Wikipedia has grown way, way too big. There are articles like this one lurking on Wikipedia and there is not enough people to review and fix them.--InaMaka (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Rhonda Roland Shearer has all the time in the world to ensure this PR piece stays glowing to her and that few other people care enough to support cutting this down to the non-stinky truth. --71.110.80.129 (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I started looking at this article with all the intentions of bringing it up to passable standard but stopped because this is clearly a PR piece. Instead I support deletion. Maugster (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.png
The image Image:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:MonsterPig.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
There are multiple statements, in multiple articles, regarding a derivative work of the Mona Lisa that are attributed to this subject. Attributed as if she was an authority or an art historian. But no where is any academic credentials listed, in fact most of the references are by website which she runs. I suspect much of the article is written by her. If I don't see any good references to her authority, I will start removing them.--71.110.80.129 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving unsourced material
I'm moving unsourced material here: Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

William Langewiesche As described by The New York Observer, Shearer "took on" journalist William Langewiesche after the latter published the controversial book on the September 11, 2001, attacks American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center. Using forensic evidence, Shearer criticized the author's troubling claims that the FDNY looted jeans from the wreckage of Ground Zero.

The Observer quotes Shearer as saying that "she has sent both Farrar, Straus and Giroux and The Atlantic Monthly a 33-page blow-by-blow rebuttal of 56 facts and statements in the three-part magazine article that was the basis of the book. In it, the authors of the rebuttal — Ms. Shearer and a group of New York City firemen, Port Authority and NYPD officers, construction workers and family members of the victims — write: 'Throughout his articles, Mr. Langewiesche continuously uses slanderous innuendo to denigrate uniformed rescue personnel and construction workers. Such statements are libelous.'"