Talk:A Child Called "It"

message: Pelzer's brother and grandmother have accused him of lying, but given the confirmations of his story by teachers and his brother, and that he was taken away by social services, I don't think a link to fake memoirs from this article is really appropriate.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah Angelove (talk • contribs) 04:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also Link to Fake Memoirs

message: This article makes bold claims but lacks any citations whatsoever. However Pelzer was an amazing man.
:Added some disputes; removed "disputed" tag. Softlavender (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factuality Disputed 

message: The notability concerns about the above article's subject have not been addressed. There are few G-hits for her that are not WP mirrors. The article relies on a single source (a self-identified "alternative newspaper") which may not meet Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. The article A Child Called "It" is more balanced and, if it were not for this book, it is doubtful Catherine Pelzer would be notable at all. Anything salvageable in the article can be addressed in a section here. Accurizer (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one seems to care, I'll redirect the article here. If anyone starts caring, feel free to undo my redirect or (preferably) prove notability with better sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from [[Catherine Pelzer]] 

message: I've read this book and I find it very sad that marketers try to extort their websites and take down others. DreamGuy and others have taken down all links except one claiming it's the only blameless one. Providing no reference, other than a state of opinion.
I think the Monkey's edits are very off because he/she keeps putting up a bad copy of the article that is filled with errors.
Nonetheless, I don't see how someone can easily write off one site and yet let others stay citing the Wikipedia's standards isn't enough because they aren't 100% black and white, almost every link on the web might not apply, if you view it a certain way. 
With that said, I motion that either all the non-commercial links be allowed, or that all links be taken down because they are being abused by marketers.
I'm not sure all the wikipedia politics but I think we should have an admin to come and take care of this because this is ridiculous.
This book touched my life, I was abused and molested. And I hate to see how people come and mess around with such a moving and powerful book.
--PrettyMexican (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighting over links 

message: The writer of this article has their opinoin, but I haven't heard any FACTS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.103.248 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just the FACTS , please! 

message: Someone needs to sort out this paragraph:
"The Book doesn't start like that. he doesn't go home and wash the dishes hoping for food. in fact the beginning starts out more like this.....Dave and his family especially his mother are all quite the happy family. They go on family trips play family games and mostly always they get along perfectly. then the mother drastically changes in to an abusive freak out of control. And it all goes downhill from that. The book starts with a normal day as Dave washes the dishes and hopes he can get food. He takes his hand out of the dish water and is slapped hard when his mother catches him as a punishment. His mother then drove him to school causing Dave to be late."
95.150.11.24 (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section 

message: Substituted at 06:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment