Talk:Neal Chase

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 03:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: Please see this talk for discussion of this edit. MARussellPESE 21:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further court cases

message: Thank you Cunado for your fair assessment and even handed approach towards reworking this article. At first glance it appears to raise nothing but minor concerns which I believe can be amicably worked out at a later date. Thanks again for taking the time to review some of the material availble, and for the work you've contributed here. Jeff 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I have a hug? Just kidding. I realized that I removed some unreferenced things that you want to include. I'm assuming that you'll add references later, but in the meantime the policies support removing. Cuñado  - Talk 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the link back. Compare this to this. Cuñado  - Talk 07:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dec 06' rewrite

message: There are certain things that bupc.com cannot be used for, and an alarming one is indicating that Neal Chase accurately predicted anything. I removed that reference. Also claiming that three professors witnessed his predictions cannot be referenced from bupc.com. I removed the long quote and tried to add the main points. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bupc dot com 

message: MARussell dispelled the myth that Appellant briefs and Response briefs can be used as references here. No double standard can be argued to be acceptable in this matter. The appellent brief is derived from depositions where members were free to declare whatever they chose; they are not findings of fact as in the case of a Court Opinion. The brief is simply relating the claims, and is contentious as they declared alternates to be board members, when clearly they were not. Dawn was his alternate and not a board member as they claimed. Moreover the reference being cited doesn't explain the relation that she's his wife, so saying so in the article is misrepresenting that the brief supports  this claim. Objections were raised over citing references to Chases claims being referenced to their depositions in the Response. These briefs are not verifiable or reliably sourced facts, and can't be misrepresented as such. DisarrayGeneral 02:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In an edit comment on 2/16/09, MARussell called this Appellant Brief a "bona fide source", and yet in this discussion dragged out an exhaustive debate over all the particular specific policy issues that prevent using depositions from court proceedings as references. I contended at the time that since the points from that brief that were hilighted in BOLD were points not contested by either party, then those details could be agreed to be un-contentious, and should qualify as a questionable source about itself. Even that was contested then as the statements were from Frank Schlatter, and not Mason Remey of whom the article was about. This even though Schlatter was relating details of Remey's life in a court case about upholding an injunction placed on Remey and his followers; yet it's "out" per the objections of MARussell. Why now are details from an Appellant brief based on a deposition from John Geesen deemed a "bona fide source" when this article isn't about Geesen? Why does MARussell manipulate these discussions with such transparent bias? The same position I took on Remey's court case holds true here: in both cases the only way these court briefs meet any form or WP:RS is as a questionable source, but the difference is that in Remey's case, the details were undisputed. In this case, the Defendants disputed every last detail out of Geesen's mouth, and every single point of that Appellant Brief in their Response. So therefore it fails for being "contentious material", and is out. DisarrayGeneral 06:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court briefs as sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neal Chase. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090402023824/http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/sll_fn_home.htm to http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/SLL/SLL_FN_home.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified