Talk:Lisa McPherson Trust

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Some are more significant mentions than others. AndroidCat (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lisa McPherson Trust references

message: I know they should be smaller but I can't think of anything else that I can remove, it all seems to be necessary to illustrate the points. If someone else could take a look at them at parse it down that would be appreciated! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work so far on the article. Not sure the quotes are really necessary at all. Per WP:V, verification itself is confirmed simply by the full citations - quoted text can be removed to save space and can be confirmed independently by checking the cited sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! The problem is I've gotten all of these sources from Lexis Nexis, and that's what the links go to. I don't know if free versions of the text exist online. When I talked to DGG about it previously he said that if I was going to quote from Lexis I had to put quotations in for other people to verify the sources. Are you sure it's fine to remove them? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: not exactly. I at least intended to say If you quote from Lexis you must indicate what the actual source of the material is, the newspaper or whatever that actually published it, not just Lexis where you found it. I see you have done so.  But it is not usually necessary to quote specifically what was said unless it is a particularly controversial point or the exct wording matters, and in such a case it is usually better to insert the quote in the article.  DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this last comment by . :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The applicable policy is WP:PAYWALL: "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries."  However it is polite to use to quote function for things that disagree with other sources or conventional wisdom. Andrew327 18:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes in references 

message: Those brackets in the opening are not a mistake. The original quote simply ended with the word "them". You may use brackets to make an editorial statement or clarification within a quote. As in: "expose the deceptive and abusive practices of Scientology and help those victimized by [the Church of Scientology]." Taking the brackets away would make it a misquote. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with above comment in this subsection by . The brackets should remain. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brackets 

message: I'd like to propose merging Bennetta Slaughter into the Lisa McPherson Trust article. After 16 years, the only generally notable content in the Bennetta Slaughter article concerns the Lisa McPherson Trust, so there's overlap. Slaughter's role in Scientology's harassment of the Trust might add a paragraph or two of informative and colorful detail to the LMT article, and I don't think that a merger would cause any article size or weighting problems in Lisa McPherson Trust. Let me know what you think. — Matuko (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: STRONG support for a merge, for exactly the reasons you state, although I think Death of Lisa McPherson might be a better target article. Going even further, I really think Lisa McPherson Trust should be merged there, too, so that everything is in one article. Joyous! Noise! 15:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

text: STRONG support as well - The Slaughter page is such a shell. While it would be tidy to add the McPherson Trust to the Lisa McPherson page, I think that the trust page would be lost there. I don't see how much more could be trimmed from Lisa's page, it's such a confusing story that needs the detail that it has. The trust page probably should remain independent, it has it's own history and some of it isn't exactly associated with McPherson, but with it's issues with Scientology in general. So merge Slaughter into this one, and keep the trust page separate. Sgerbic (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Support - I'll concede that the Bennetta Slaughter#Controversy content could fit into the Lisa McPherson Trust article under a new section. The rest of the BS page is not worth carrying over. I also think the related articles Death of Lisa McPherson and Bob Minton should stand on their own and not be merged. Grorp (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bennetta Slaughter merger proposal