Talk:Peter H. Gilmore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Credentials

The request that there be a source for, of all things, his masters degree, is borderline absurd. Do you suggest that a scan of his degree or his employment contract be uploaded merely to confirm this fact that is verified by him personally? No such requests are made of other public figures. The page for Bill Clinton, for example, does not cite a source for the claim that he possesses a B.S.F.S and J.D.; would the editor in question like to attempt to delete that paragraph and request similar proof for President Clinton? -Lvthn13 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Mr. Clinton's credentials are well-known and a matter of public record. Mr. Gilmore's supposed degree is not, and such unsubstantiated claims (especially when they are "personally verified", i.e. a matter of vanity and possible misinformation) do not belong on Wiki.

Also, you have not registered as a Wikipedia editor yet you wish to engage in disputes over facts. If you wish to participate actively on Wikipedia, please register an account. -Lvthn13 20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Explain precisely why we should take one person's word for it and not another's. The fact is that Peter Gilmore's degree and employment are a matter of public record, since they can be researched and verified. Same standards apply regardless of person in question. Source all such claims or do not ask for it here. Also, suggesting that he has reason to lie about having a degree or a job is quite a claim indeed, one that certainly demands substantiation. It would appear that your reasoning is that because he is a Satanist, he is likely to be lying (or because he is not Anton LaVey yet is High Priest, he is likely to be lying). Either such slant would be clearly contrary to neutrality.

• One could indeed request information from New York University concerning Mr. Gilmore's supposed degree, so I will let that one stand for now. However, of what "museum" is he the "curator"?

It would be one thing to cite the statement as unsourced, it is quite another to delete it out of hand and make the accusation that it is falsified. -Lvthn13 20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• From what I've read on Satannet, Gilmore has devoted his full time to running the Church of Satan. I mean it can't be exactly easy or a side thing can it? That as well as writing his new book and stuff.

• While it may not be possible to list a source in Gilmore's case (since members of the CoS understandably seem to live rather enigmatic lives) it would be appreciated if you could elaborate on some of your claims. If he has graduated from New York University you should include when and why. If he's a musician then what does he play? A museum curator? When and where? Also, I feel compelled to mention that while you have said that Gilmore has been interviewed on numerous television and radio programs, those mentioned in the article are not listed in any shape or form under the "Interviews" section. If you're going to give links to Gilmore's published essay on Satanism you need to give us a link to the actual essay, not to the website that contains it. Also, in typical articles involving a person it is a good idea to include more about their past/background.

Your facts are stated in a vague manner that defeats the purpose of this article's existence. People come here in search of information that has been gathered for their convenience. Yes, it is possible for us to research this ourselves. I intend on doing just that. My point is, if you're going to write an article, you need to take it upon yourself to do the research. This takes time and effort, and if you're not willing to spend it you shouldn't write articles.

In regards to whether or not claims about his degree and occupation are lies, I feel compelled to remind you that this is the internet. Many articles here are deleted and edited because of vandalism and objective opinions tainting them. While this may not be the case, it is standard to provide sources so that information won't come under redundant scrutiny. If you have seen other articles that do not provide sources then you should inform the proper people. If you're making a case for yourself you should cite Wiki rules and regulations instead of information contained in other articles, because it is quite possible that the article that you're referencing is flawed. No one is accusing Gilmore or anyone else of lying. We are, however, requesting that proof or details concerning how to obtain proof are provided so that there are no doubts. This is an entirely reasonable request. To take a defensive tone in the face of reason denotes a tendency towards absurdity and is an obstacle to objectivism.

It would be appreciated if you consider my words carefully before you respond. Garonyldas 02:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Garonyldas