Talk:Tony Alamo/Archive 1

Previous discussions without headers
Who is the woman on his radio show? One of his wives mentioned in the article? Or a new one?

I hadn't thought of these people since I was a kid. I came from Arkansas and they were kind of legendary around there for their activities. I think it was said they mummified the one woman and put her in a glass display case like the Soviets did with Stalin. Might be the article, I haven't read it for awhile.--T. Anthony 21:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the one. He tried to say his wife would rise again. He's still about and still distributing leaflets. --MacRusgail 11:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah I told my Mom about what I found out here and elsewhere. I had only thought of him as one of those weird figures who hoped to make being Catholic in Northwest Arkansas difficult, but as I haven't lived there since I was little I'd almost forgotten him. I added "New religious movements" as a category for him. I hope no one objects, it's just him only being described as "Christian Fundamentalist" does seem a bit misleading. He was a good deal umm more eccentric than most Fundamentalists.--T. Anthony 08:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay after some thought I did replace "Christian Fundamentalism" with "Anti-Catholicism" as an Alamo category. As explained I think that's more descriptive and useful in understanding his legacy or significance. If there's an objection to that change though I am open to hearing it. Really, changing it back would be easy if there's good reason to do so.--T. Anthony 10:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * He is still fiercely anti-Catholic, and it does appear to be one of the planks of his philosophy. He actually thought the Soviet Union was run from the Vatican. --MacRusgail 15:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I just peeled one of his leaflets off the windshield of my car an less than an hour ago in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Apparently his organization has got 12-year-old kids out there distrubuting them as I speak. So I looked on here to find out who he really was. Thank you Wikipedia. LOL. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  22:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we move the paragraph under Biography that starts with "Alamo's followers sometimes distribute his writings..." to the top section, since it isn't biographical, and it repeats a similar statement at the top. Wake 19:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

listen for yourself

To editor User:Narrow is the way

 * 1) please sign your posts ~
 * 2)You have been adding:
 * i)POV material to a contraversial topic repeatedly which constitutes vandalism
 * ii)The material you have added looks to have been copied from a website, meaning it contravenes copyright rules for wikipedia.
 * 3)I noticed that you blanked this talk page. Do not do that in future, it is considered bad form.
 * please direct any problems you have with the page here on the talk page and as a group (with other editors who are interested) we will try to come to a concensus as to how (if there is a way) to solve the problem. Dave 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Since people can't agree on an edit. I've slapped a NPOV template up. Before making any more edits please read this page NPOV_tutorial. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on what should be included in the article. GWatson &#149; TALK 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

NOT misleading summaries
The edits are FACTS with DATES and detailed information.

the version yellowmellow45 is malicious slandous LIES. yellowmellow45 is not neutral, but biased and opinionated, subverting the reader to HIS personal attacks against a living person.

this is a grave injustice.

the other discussions from T. anthony and Mac Rusgail Should be removed from the discussion page as they have NOTHING to do with the article, they are person opinionated attacks against a living person, a US citizen, that has rights under the Constitution of the United States.

They need to take their personal attacks to some trashy forum.

Narrow is the way 19:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As of yet, you haven't actually listed clearly what the lies are. Instead you've been spouting off about other editors and using language which would almost disqualify you from any attempt at NPOV. You have been doing an awful lot of slander yourself, so let's not get hypocritical (just look at what you wrote above). As for the so-called character assassination, Alamo comes off quite lightly in my opinion. But I am, however glad that you are using the talk page now. Dave 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) ---

What you say is again NOT true. Yes the lies you are spouting have been aswered, but you won't read them! You are putting in your NEGATIVE opinions, personally attacking and that is NOT neutral, you don't qualify if you are getting paid to do this. Narrow is the way 20:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Make a list, here, on this page, below, point by point of the specific lies you think are being told. I would remind you that you shouldn't direct your attacks to editors or use an aggresive tone as you have been told on numerous occasions before your last post.Dave 21:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

---

1. "In 1989, he fled Saugus after he was charged with abusing the 11 yr old child of a follower at the group commune in Santa Clarita Valley, and eluded capture"

Charges were filed and the child was removed from the compound. Source:http://www.skepticfiles.org/cultinfo/alamo.htm There have been numerous reports of abuse from former members of the Alamo cult. Source: http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/18619/25913.html?1163682122 Source: http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/18619/25940.html?1163682328

He never abused anybody-

In January of 1988,  the child was at the center of a custody battle between his mother, a member of Alamo’s church, and his father, Carey Miller who had left the church.

Miller had abandoned the mother and the child, and according to the church, had embezzled church funds. Nonetheless, the father's accusations prompted a March of 1988 raid on the Saugus community, in which 60 Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies took the child and confiscated church property to be used as evidence. The raid turned up no evidence and the prosecutors initially declined to file charges

The charges were dropped because the brothers were removed from the compound. That's all the family wanted. Source: http://www.skepticfiles.org/cultinfo/alamo.htm

1. The charges were dropped because they were false. You can not have a neutral biography, if you don't include that the charges were Dropped!

2. the comment in italics and the following lines are from a newspaper that had it worded so, you are guilty before you get a fair trial. How many times have you seen the new media attack someone, over and over and over until they get you to believe what they will? The news media was pushing the side of the embezzeler that brought false accusations to elude prosecution.

This case was never brought to trial, and the California district attorney formally dropped the charges.

3. you don't explain why they left the property or even why his wife's body was relocated to a cemetery. The U.S. Marshall's and TV 5 planned to desecrate the grave.

Would you sit idle while your spouse or your loved ones grave is desecrated?

The big story here is that they said in refering to opening the grave, "I don't know if it's legal or not, but we're going to do it anyway".

The literature is distributed every day.

I'll will answer more later. Narrow is the way

-

The Ministry built homes, schools, cafeteria, and Churches for services for the people to use and live in. The property belonged to 20 people in the Ministry and the Federal government agents walked up on the property and told the people that lived there to get off the property, this is now taken over and the government put everyone on the street. The government sold the property that was worth millions for pennies on the dollar.

2 brothers by the name of Miller had stolen $200,000 dollars from the Church and left the Church. To avoid prosecuction for theft, they made the false accusation against several people that the boy Justin Miller by your words:"could not sit down without a pillow for 2-3 weeks" after having been spanked. The truth about the civil lawsuit you refer to.

more laterNarrow is the way 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by Toitd
User:Toitd recently edited this article to make sure that it provided a pro-Alamo POV in violation of WP:NPOV. While I reverted the changes, I wanted to post here for a different reason. Toitd added the full name of the child supposedly abused at the direction of Alamo. I have no idea whether this is legal or not, but I believe that the names of alleged victims of child abuse are under seal in many courts. At the very least, it seems in bad taste to reveal the name of a possible victim of child abuse on Wikipedia. I'm strongly opposed to censorship on Wikipedia, but given the nature of Toitd's edits, it is possible that the name of the child is being added here merely as some attempt at a form of retribution toward the child or his/her family. Perhaps the revisions should be deleted entirely. &middot; j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the version of the article relevant to my comment above was reverted to again, I did a small amount of research on my initial hypothesis about the identity of alleged child abuse victims. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act apportions U.S. federal grant money to states that comply with its provisions.  Every state has complied with the Act's provisions.  One provision of the Act requires states to pass laws to keep records relating to child abuse reports and proceedings confidential.  Thus, it seems that revealing more than has been published in reliable sources regarding the alleged abuse incident concerning Alamo could potentially be illegal.  No reliable source has printed the child's name.  Thus, I think the relevant versions of the article should be deleted, references to the name on this talk page should be removed, and appropriate action taken against the offending user(s). &middot;  j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 18:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I do have oversight capability but I'm not willing to delete the sections on your say so alone. A debate with the wider community is needed. However the two users who are reverting have clearly got thier information from here and they are certainly violating copyright but cutting and pasting sections from that article. If they continue I am willing to protect the article because of this. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Public Ministry
Tony Alamo is a minister of the Bible and has many friends in the Christian community. Churches around the world have literally started churches under Tony Alamo's name. To delete a section in Tony Alamo's article entitled "Public Ministry" certainly would not fall under the catagory of NPOV. He is a minister and many have testified regarding this. he has had letters from reputable christian based colleges commending his literature within the last five years. The "Dubious source" and weasel words" as you (Jersyko) have  put it are very wrong. I will be forced to bring this to arbitration.

Jerseyko Is deleting small section of a Christian Minister's public ministry section newly created by me,Tlthe5th. The minister's name is Tony Alamo and has had controversy surrounding him but to be nuetral i believe it should be said that Tony is considered a Christian minister by many including very well known and established Christian Universities. Baylor University in Texas for instance. Churches around the world have been founded and named after Tony Alamo because of the profound effect his literature has had.

there was a web site set up listing some testimonies of individuals who have found God (the God of the Bible) through Tony's literature and Jersyko deleted them citing "dubious sources" and "weasel words". Yet other web sites which are alleging slander against Mr Alamo are allowed to stay up. Is this NPOV? Matter of fact one of the web sites which is slandering Mr. Alamo was shut down by the host due to possible legal retribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlthe5th (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Calm down, please. Threatening arbitration is not going to help things.  Please see how to resolve disputes on wikipedia.  The first problem with the addition is the source, which is not reliable.  First, it seems to be a series of letters from individuals, which are primary sources.  Second, the website itself is a bit sketchy, I think, in terms of being a good source for news or reliability.  If you can find some newspaper reports, for example, discussing Alamo's ministry, the number of his followers, or the work his ministry has done, that would be acceptable.  However, the wording of the addition would have to comply with WP:NPOV, and it currently does not.  Additionally, the addition is fraught with weasel words.  Thanks. ·  jersyko   talk  21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what a ministry is made of. People. Yes, so people write for a public testimony what has happened to them and how Tony helped them. You cant rely on secular newspapers to cite Tony Alamos ministry to make his public ministry valid. Maybe you are unfamiliar with Christian ministries but these types of testimonies are very important to other Christians. For Jesus even states, "You will know them by their fruits" Christians consider these kinds of testimonials "Fruit". How can a section be judged by someone not familiar with Christian terminology? of course to you the entry may be "dubious sources" or "weasel-worded" but to others it is a rock solid proof that Tony has a ministry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlthe5th (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm quite familiar with Christian terminology. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for claims made in articles, and it requires that information be presented neutrally.  Support for claims about Alamo's ministry do not have to come from newspaper articles, but sources must be something more than letters written and then posted on the web.  Thanks. ·  jersyko   talk  22:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a classic case of libel here and it needs to be removed. He has no citation or reference. it's just hearsay. Jersyko. why did you vandalise this article and delete the section on Tony Alamo's public ministry. i can see you have taken a personal interest in this article. Visiting it regularly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.219.18 (talk • contribs)

Hmm. The preceding comment was unsigned. This is a new comment. I am not sure why the BOT removed this, but I did put it back:

Susan, who was referred to as "the handmaiden of the Lord," delivered the sermons on the Alamos' syndicated TV program during the 1970s, while Tony appeared to sing a gospel song.

Unfortunately, this is OR. I have discussed this all, personally, with Susan's daughter, Christine Mick, and with former member Terry Sherven. Susan was called "the handmaiden of the Lord" within the group "because there were no female prophets." Wowest 03:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

They are a cult

 * As an editor who lived in California during the 1970's, I can personally attest that Alamo's acolytes, usually young pretty females, would actively prowl the streets of Hollywood, trying to recruit young girls, such as myself, by reciting, as if by rote, long-winded tales about having been on drugs and engaged in promiscuity until they found "The Truth". Then the woman would hand me a pamplet, inviting me to come to their "church" up in the Hollywood Hills. Sometimes the females would describe themselves as "brides of Christ". They are a CULT and a dangerous, sectarian cult at that, which had/has no place in a country like America which was founded on religious freedom for everybody, including Catholics. As an Irish descended person, I think someone like Alamo has a nerve to impose his hate-filled paranoic views on a country which has a large population of Irish-Catholics whose ancestors suffered under the Penal Laws in their own country. I might also add to those who seek to defend Alamo that the forefathers who guaranteed freedom of worship 200 years ago, made it possible for the successful immigration to the USA of Tony Alamo's own family, who weren't even originally Christian themselves!!!!!jeanne (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I agree I think policy is that we can't say anything, not even Heaven's Gate, simply is a cult. We can report cult allegations, but readers have to be able to make up their own mind based on facts. I think this policy, on balance, is probably a good idea because some people are too quick to cry "cult." See List of groups referred to as cults to get a sense of the varied groups called "cult." (Things running from the Contemporary architecture to Protestantism)--T. Anthony (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't "what they are." It's "what they do." The problem is that the worst part of what they do is really only available from interviewing ex-members, preferably those who have been properly deprogrammed. There is very little available in print. It's as if the "exit counselors" are keeping some of the most incriminating facts about the group as their own trade secrets.
 * Former members have told me that members of the group are scared into thinking the phrase "praise you, Jesus, thank you, Jesus" over and over again, all day long. That keeps them, effectively, self-hypnotized and not aware of their situation, so that they come to believe just about anything they are told. Funny how, in this kind of cult, that usually amounts to working for no money and living in extreme poverty while the ministers or other leaders live in luxury. However, just try to find that fact in print! Wowest (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey you get know argument from me. My Mom knew some poor kids sucked into this and made into virtual slaves by the sound of it. They sound like a pretty freaky group judging from those I know who knew them. I'm just saying that if it's not as hostile as you or I think the evidence warrants there is some justification for that. Wikipedia has to be NPOV. I do remember an interview of Susan Alamo's daughter, who was highly negative on the group, in the news from a few months back. If it's not in I might add it as a source if it's seen as relevant.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I f girls refering to themselves as "Brides of Christ" doesn't qualify them to be considered members of a cult, then Jim Jones was St.Francis of Assisi!.Just to look at the photo of Tony Alamo gives one the creeps. He looks like a gangster.I can remember how many of these girls used to walk the streets of Hollywood recruiting new members. What I don't understand is how they manage to remain in Texarcana; especially after Waco-now that's another story!!!jeanne (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct spelling is Texarkana, and the raid was at Fouke. See "Media Coverage" below. Powerzilla (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory
I base my listing of Tony Alamo as a "conspiracy theorist" on a pamphlet that I received in NYC from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries, entitled "EVIL INTERNATIONAL ROMAN CATHOLIC GOVERNMENT AGENTS ARE CLAIMING TO BE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GOVERNMENT AGENTS". Mr. Alamo's name is in the byline, and the gist of the article (which contains a "confession of a former FBI, BATF, DEA, and Federal Bureau Task Force undercover agent") blames the Federal government, and the Vatican, of a) assassinating David Koresh, b) being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11, c) giving the atomic bomb to Joseph Stalin and framing Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for the deed, d) knowingly letting the attack on Pearl Harbor happen, e) collaborating with the KKK and with Aryan Nation, f) staging or contributing to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, f) poisoning people with uranium in their drinking water, and g) (of course) framing Tony Alamo. Alamo links those theorized government/Vatican conspiracies to Satan; this fits in nicely with his theology equating the Pope with the Antichrist. 204.52.215.14 (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And, I deleted it as defamatory of other people labeled "conspiracy theorists." Promoting blatantly paranoid "us versus them" notions is part of the group's mind-control system. They are taught that if they stop thinking their mantram "Praise you, Jesus, thank you Jesus" 24 hours a day, they will be "zapped" by God, turned into homosexuals and barred from Heaven. Most of their tracts are designed to keep their followers in fear by using Bible quotations which will simultaneously intimidate outsiders from criticizing them because it makes them sound like a religion. Wowest (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of marriages
The chronology of the subject's marriages is confusing. We are told that in 1984 he married his second wife, and two paragraphs later we learn of his third marriage. What happened to the second marriage? Did they divorce? Next there is a reference to a custody battle. Whose children, and from which marriage? Then comes a reference to "his second wife's body." When did wife #2 die? Was he now keeping the bodies of two former wives? What is the sequence of events here? Is he currently married? If this is relevant to the article, it needs to be cleaned up. Desertpapa (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Some Neutrality?
This is getting ridiculous. just look at this page. there are almost NO neutral sources here. yes, he is controversial, yes he has been accused. but he also gets a lot of praise as well. this whole article is just miserable. it's obvious you are just letting his accusers and disgruntled ex members have a field day here. they go start web sites, blogs, etc etc, and then post all their slanted views and articles and false accusations, lies, distortions here. Enough is enough!! i find this just irresponsible of wikipedia admins to allow this. How can you let ex members do this? how could you consider the article "neutral"? InfoFlow 22:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoFlow (talk • contribs)


 * Nearly all of the sources cited in this article are newspaper articles or widely used news sources (like AP and CNN). I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about when you say there are almost no neutral sources here. Interwebs (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

I can vouch that this article appears to be a slam job on Tony Alamo. Most of these News sources are quoting people who used to attend Alamo church. Try finding people who still attend. Often times if an employee or former member of any group has a bad experience they will often exagerate what happened because they feel they weren't treated fairly. Happens all the time. How about the workers who go get guns come back and kill a whole bunch of people they worked with? Perfect example. those people killed former workers. ex alamo members try to hurt the church with words. so they go to the press, file charges, etc. And it's easy to do with a church like alamo ministries because of all the scrutiny on them from the past. But all these new charges are a new thing. They raided them as part of a "child porn investigation"? They don't find child porn but take 6 children? Then they are getting all these other people to testify? something seems strange. to me it looks like a bunch of disgruntled people are causing the church trouble and the government and state are just going with it because they don't like them anyway. and then the media is just running with it. I didnt think wikipedia just lazily put together an article based solely on news media articles. look at it this way. If the news media do not like someone then what they are reporting is no longer neutral, then the wiki article isn't neutral. of course you will not see them reporting all the good things Tony Alamo does. And he does do good things. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Not a mainstream media regurgitator. it's a cheesy article hereHarold Magoo (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. Sometimes the truth is ugly. Tony Alamo has done ugly things. Sorry if you don't like it but if it happened and is related to Tony Alamo then it is going to be in this article. End of story. 71.68.15.63 (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage of raids
These are, so far, besides those mentioned here in this article, are:

(Use caution here. To exit the Channel 6 link, you'll have to shut down computer, then return to Wikipedia)
 * http://www.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080921/ap_on_re_us/evangelist_child_porn
 * http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/media_player.php?media_id=40261 - Channel 6, Shreveport TV station
 * http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9046339 - Channel 12 Shreveport TV station
 * http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9055216 - Church Member Speaks out about Raid, Channel 12 Shreveport TV station
 * http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStoryid=5854391 - ABC News on this matter
 * http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5865558&page=1 - More from ABC News on this matter


 * These should be added. The raids have been conducted by the FBI. Powerzilla (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Two more:


 * http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9062873
 * http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9062953


 * These two are about the concerns of residents and girls removed from the religious compound. Powerzilla (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusing wording
"He and his late wife Susan are best known as the founders of a radical, nominally "fundamentalist" organization currently known as Tony Alamo Christian Ministries."

The terms "radical" and "nominally" seem somewhat contradictory. Perhaps this could be cleared up? CopaceticThought (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They aren't really contradictory. "Radical" means extreme. It does not mean "extremely Christian" in this context. "Nominally fundamentalist" means that it is fundamentalist Christian in name only. Members were told that they could only read certain parts of the Bible. Most fundamentalist Christians would find that objectionable. Members were told that they must repetitively think the phrase "Praise you, Jesus. Thank you, Jesus." all day long. Most fundamentalist Christians and mental health professionals would find that objectionable. They were told that if they stopped thinking that phrase or ventured off the Foundation's property alone, they would be condemned to Hell. Most Americans would find that belief radical. While the Alamos lived in a big, fancy house build by unpaid labor, the followers lived in crowded, unsanitary conditions and ate food largely salvaged from dumpsters behind super markets. Perhaps it should say "extremist" rather than "radical." Perhaps it should say "exploitative." Perhaps the word "hypocritical" should appear somewhere. Wowest (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

pejorative cult term
This article uses pejorative terms throughout it. It also links to articles that do not support it's assumptions. For example, it links to the wikipedia article on Margaret Singer to support using the term cult. That linking does not support the use of a term in a article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilowattradio (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am unsure what other terms you feel are unsourced. However, the term "cult" cites three sources. While one of the sources is a book by Singer, it does not cite the Wikipedia article about her. Rather, in addition to giving details on the book, it links to our articles about her, her coauthor and the book: Singer, Margaret, Janja Lalich, Cults in Our Midst (Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995) p.87. The other two sources are newspaper accounts of his arrest, using the word "cult" in the headlines and throughout the respective articles. If there is other terminology you feel is unsourced, please state where it is in the article and consider tagging it with "cite needed" by adding immediately after the term. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with SummerPhD that the sources as cited in the lead clearly describe the organization as a cult and the Los Angeles Times article by their law and legal issues section is probably good enough by itself. One source that may be fairly weak is the New England Institute of Religious Research website as it's not clear to the layperson if they are a top tier research organization.  However, the LA Times articles seem to carry the burden in my opinion.


 * This wiki article itself however does a poor job of describing his ministry and why it is considered a cult but that's a problem with the main body of the article and doesn't really relate to the lead sentence. Since Tony Alamo Christian Ministries does not have it's own wiki article it should be addressed more fully within this one.  Veriss (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Radio Show
Curiously, KLAV-AM in Las Vegas still carries the radio show nightly at 11PM local time. Is that worthy of a mention?69.37.98.206 (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont like that picture
Dudes, does anyone gots a different pociture of this geezer. I no that maybe it be because he like to mess with stuff, but that picture is reallly creappy. Please chenge it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We know it isn't the best picture. It is not because "he like to mess with stuff", but because there are very few free photos of him available. If you have a better, less "creappy" one that you would be willing to make free, we're here to help. Thanks.? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

More current picture seems far more appropriate than the very old 'glamour' shot on there now
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090715/capt.2cfbb8a47c1a4b52a7e71322cea840b6.evangelist_child_abuse_txtex104.jpg?x=282&y=345&q=85&sig=nqgVRXWDiBsSdEOttAajRw--

Precious, eh?

I must say, I was tempted to replace but I'm holding back to see what someone else without a bias thinks. I'm too biased.
 * I agree. I'll look and see if it's been added to Wikimedia commons. --65.92.223.113 (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo
An editor has twice removed the photo because it is old. (It is old: 1986.) This is not a valid reason to remove the image. Yes, we probably should try for something more recent. Until we have something current, we use what we have. That said, I am uncertain that we should/can keep the current photo. The "fair use" claim for the file (see File:TonyAlamo.jpg) claims "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". Generally, for living people we rarely use this explanation unless the person in question is a Howard Hughes-level recluse. I don't know if Alamo's long stay as a guest of the Federal Government qualifies. Putting that aside for a moment, shouldn't there be a mug shot available? If so, it is certainly more recent (2008 or so) and would, AFAIK, be free. Anyone know this stuff and want to fill in the blanks here before I have to run around looking for an expert at a message board of some sort? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

How about this one, https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRa1C-C1_JN74N0VC9PM9YFgvZ5sJZuAm6zn5L9aQOJGgQHJt82rQ ... Seems appropriate and as current as it gets.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.72.14 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Images need to be appropriately license for use on Wikipedia. The raw link to the image that you have provided does not provide any information on licensing and it cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To be fare, the one the on that is up now has dubious "copyright issues" aw well. =//= Johnny Squeaky 02:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The file desription page includes a tag explaining why this file is being used even though it is non-free. Why does it have dubious copyright issues? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say "dubious", but the decision that he was a recluse (thus a free alternative cannot be created) seems to be from January 2007. Since then, we have a September 25, 2008 arrest and a July 24, 2009 conviction. I'm assuming -- but do not know -- that there was a mugshot in there somewhere. Wouldn't that image be free? -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like the mugshot in question is here. Am I missing something? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on US law but, as I understand it, some mugshots are free while others aren't. We'd need to determine what category this one is in. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My point was that the out-of-date image that is in use now has the same copyright issues (and fair use justifications) as the more up-to-date images that have been rejected. =//= Johnny Squeaky 20:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we agree that if a mug shot would be acceptable? Alamo was convicted in a Federal court, thus his mug shot is public property. There should be no copyright issues.... =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

More current picture seems far more appropriate than the very old 'glamour' shot on there now
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090715/capt.2cfbb8a47c1a4b52a7e71322cea840b6.evangelist_child_abuse_txtex104.jpg?x=282&y=345&q=85&sig=nqgVRXWDiBsSdEOttAajRw--

Precious, eh?

I must say, I was tempted to replace but I'm holding back to see what someone else without a bias thinks. I'm too biased.
 * I agree. I'll look and see if it's been added to Wikimedia commons. --65.92.223.113 (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo
An editor has twice removed the photo because it is old. (It is old: 1986.) This is not a valid reason to remove the image. Yes, we probably should try for something more recent. Until we have something current, we use what we have. That said, I am uncertain that we should/can keep the current photo. The "fair use" claim for the file (see File:TonyAlamo.jpg) claims "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". Generally, for living people we rarely use this explanation unless the person in question is a Howard Hughes-level recluse. I don't know if Alamo's long stay as a guest of the Federal Government qualifies. Putting that aside for a moment, shouldn't there be a mug shot available? If so, it is certainly more recent (2008 or so) and would, AFAIK, be free. Anyone know this stuff and want to fill in the blanks here before I have to run around looking for an expert at a message board of some sort? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

How about this one, https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRa1C-C1_JN74N0VC9PM9YFgvZ5sJZuAm6zn5L9aQOJGgQHJt82rQ ... Seems appropriate and as current as it gets.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.72.14 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Images need to be appropriately license for use on Wikipedia. The raw link to the image that you have provided does not provide any information on licensing and it cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To be fare, the one the on that is up now has dubious "copyright issues" aw well. =//= Johnny Squeaky 02:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The file desription page includes a tag explaining why this file is being used even though it is non-free. Why does it have dubious copyright issues? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say "dubious", but the decision that he was a recluse (thus a free alternative cannot be created) seems to be from January 2007. Since then, we have a September 25, 2008 arrest and a July 24, 2009 conviction. I'm assuming -- but do not know -- that there was a mugshot in there somewhere. Wouldn't that image be free? -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like the mugshot in question is here. Am I missing something? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on US law but, as I understand it, some mugshots are free while others aren't. We'd need to determine what category this one is in. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My point was that the out-of-date image that is in use now has the same copyright issues (and fair use justifications) as the more up-to-date images that have been rejected. =//= Johnny Squeaky 20:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we agree that if a mug shot would be acceptable? Alamo was convicted in a Federal court, thus his mug shot is public property. There should be no copyright issues.... =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)