Talk:Seductive Poison

John Judge is not a reliable source
He is a fringe theorist who writes statements such as"Jonestown was an experiment, part of a 30-year program called MK-ULTRA, the CIA and military intelligence code name for mind control."

Also, not notability has been establish for and LL Layton cite.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not John Judge is a reliable is a matter of personal opinion
She was married to George Phillip Blakey who placed the down payment on the property in Guyana which was purchased by Jim Jones and the People's Temple The Black Hole of Guyana George Phillip Blakey's role mentioned in The Black Hole of Guyana by John Judge. She is the daughter of the late Laurence Laird Layton "Laurence Laird Layton's obitiuary"

These facts are very notable.

These are valid references to Deborah Layton's connections while a member of The People's Temple and within her family. What your opinion is about John Judge is irrelevant. It's up to the readers of this article to draw their own conclsions. If you people who keep deleting these references are so convinced John Judge is unreliable than I suggest you find references to both George Phillip Blakey and Laurence Laird Layton elsewhere that have a more Neutral point of view because at the rate you are going, you clearly show you have none of your own.

My2sense2wikip (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not "peronal opinion." Judge is not a Reliable source per Wikipedia standards because he is espousing and extremist fringe theory about the incidents at Jonestown, such as "Jonestown was an experiment, part of a 30-year program called MK-ULTRA, the CIA and military intelligence code name for mind control."


 * Also, aside from that, the fact that Phillip Blakey was her de jure (but not in any real sense) husband (read the book if you want to know the real story abou the various Temple marriages) and that LL was her father aren't notable for a Wikipedia article on the book Seductive Poison. Deborah Layton has a long list of relatives, including a mother Lisa who died in Jonestown (and was sadly a holocaust survivor) and thousands of other facts about her and Jonestown (in fact, 300 pages worth in her book) that are not notable for a Wikipedia article on the existence of the book.


 * This article is on the book Seductive Poison, not Debbie Layton's life. It also doesn't recount the details of the book. It's just an encyclopedic article on the book's existence.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If someone had an entry article about Deborah Layton that didin't automically relocate to this article I would include these entries there and to this article, Otherwise I strongly disagree with you and so do a lot of other wikipedia contributors. These edits here won't end. I promise you.

Someone who made that automatic re-direct probably had an agenda to plug this book and divert people away from her personal background. There was government complicity with Jonestown and you clearly have an agenda to discredit The Black Hole of Guyana by condemming it as fringe.

My2sense2wikip (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There's only a redirect for Deborah Layton because she doesn't have her own article. If you want to start a Deborah Layton article, and have enough cites (reliable, of course), then one might get into various obscure relatives.


 * But this article is on the book Seductive Poison. And it's not a recounting of every detail in that book.  It's just an encyclopedic article on its existence.  Phil and LL don't even make the top 5 friends/relatives mentioned in the book itself. (mother Lisa, brother Larry, Shanda James, Annie Moore, Carolyn Layton, etc.  all way more).


 * There's no campaign to discredit John Judge. Few people even know about his existence.  And I'm sure he himself would admit that his writings espouse are extremist fringe theories.  No one is saying they shouldn't exist, but their use as a source in an encylopedia is not proper and controvenes wikipedia WP:Reliable sources.


 * "These edits here won't end. I promise you." Such promises to be combative rather than constructive don't bode well for your future here. I suggest having a more open attitude. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Do explain about an open attitude by withholding diverse references to valid information pertinent to an article. My2sense2wikip (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is "withholding " anything. Wikipedia has a WP:Reliable sources policy.  The Judge source is most certainly an extreme fringe theory source.  No one I've ever seen has argued it wasn't.  I'm pretty sure even Judge himself would admit that.  That's fine, but not for Wikipedia.  It's not a bulletin board or place for discussion.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Some people think UFOs were responsible for Jonestown deaths.  Again, not a place for Wikipedia.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte, That's you're opinion that I categorically disagree with. Just because it's not a popular article doesn't mean it's lacking reliabilty. As far as I can see it clearly identifies Deborah Layton's relatives and their roles. The world is much bigger than who you've met and this article is for the world to see. You're not an authority on Wikipedia any more than anyone else with enough time on his hands editing articles that no one else counter-edits. Quit asserting that you know what you're talking about as though your opinion has anymore authority than anyone else here. And another thing entirely, here is a list of couples in Jonestown: [url]http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/images/pdf/jt_married.pdf[/url] My2sense2wikip (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is disputing that Deborah was married to Phil. It's (1) the source; and (2) the notability in Seductive Poision.


 * Your comments themselves have violated Wikipedia policy, as well as your continued Edit Warring adding an unreliable source.


 * I have unsuccessfully tried to engage in a constructive discussion on the matter to no avail. I'll take it to ANI if you repeatedly engage in this behavior.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop Adding Ratical.org and Debbie Layton personal tidbits to book article
Re, you were already blocked for repeatedly adding such irrelevant and unreliably sourced material here as evidenced again here.

They are not proper, and especially egregious given your proclamation before being blocked last time that "These edits here won't end. I promise you."Mosedschurte (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protected
The page has been fully protected for three days. Discuss content changes here rather than inserting or reverting them. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)