Talk:Don Lapre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This page seems to be mainly pasted in from a website. I hate Don too but this page needs cleanup.

Just some joker pissed off and pasting in info, reverted. --Fxer 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Needs more content

Right now I'm compiling information about Don Lapre that I hope to be adding soon. This includes his run-ins with authorities, banckruptcy filings, and other business ventures. -TheDevilYouKnow 03:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a lot of stuff about Lapre's businesses. The information about his financial and legal troubles will be coming shortly and will have its own section. TheDevilYouKnow 17:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent additions, just make sure you include references for information you add. --Fxer 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to get around to collecting reference links. If someone else would like to do it, the information is available at quackwatch.org (ref #1). Most of the information comes from the Phoenix New Times article referenced at quackwatch.org TheDevilYouKnow 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is loaded with numerous negative statements without references. They should be deleted unless citations are added. Rray 20:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure no problem. I'll make this little contribution. Head over to quackwatch.org (or click ref #4). Then scroll down to the bottom of the article. There you should see a list of 18 or so references. Have fun. TheDevilYouKnow 05:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is not neutral.

This article is clearly set up to portray Don Lapre in a negative light. Just look at the ridiculous screen capture. Things like this are a waste of time for users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.29.115.10 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Posts like this on the talk page are the real waste of time, because you could have easily edited the article yourself. Or you could have provided specific feedback about what you think needs to be changed. Not only that, but your comment is insulting to the editors who have contributed to the article. Be civil and specific next time. Rray 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Editing this article will result in the article being immediately edited back to its original form by non-neutral parties.
Please sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes after your comments. (This is a tilde ~.) If you can't or won't provide specifics or edit the article to improve it, then you're just trolling anyway, and you're not interested in actually improving the article. Rray 13:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not trolling. I am merely pointing out that this is the most unbalanced WP article I have ever seen. Upon reading the discussion page, I found out that it is being maintained by people who hate the person the article is about. 213.29.115.10 14:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Please go ahead and remove any negative unreferenced information. Wyatt Riot 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
That picture is hilarious! Nice job. You failed to mention that this clown is a high school drop out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.128.29.37 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone added that information today, but I removed it. Additions like that need a citation, otherwise we run the risk of actually making the article unbalanced. Rray (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-level Marketing?

If this article makes that claim it should have an example supporting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.135.249.238 (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image Captions

I improved the image captions, but they were immediately reverted. The one of Don read "Don Lapre looking goofy in one of his infomercials." It should be made known that the picture is not how he typically looks. To not do that would actually be less neutral. The one of David Spade read "David Spade lampoons Lapre in a Saturday Night Live sketch." The capacity in which he was portrayed on Saturday Night Live (satire) is completely relevant and neutral. I am rather confused why it was reverted.

Saying that Lapre "looks goofy" or is "lampooned" both violate Wikipedia policies regarding Biographies of living persons and Neutral point of view. If you would like to find some Images that fit with policy, please do so. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The first caption did not say he "looks goofy," it said that the picture is of him looking goofy, which is very different. It implies that he ordinarily does not look goofy, only in that particular picture. The definition of lampoon can be found at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lampoon . That is exactly what David Spade was doing, no more, no less. Saying that a person is lampooned says nothing at all negative about the person in question. It is a statement of pure fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.128.34.90 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Both statements could be seen as insulting of Don Lapre, which is what we're trying to avoid here. Again, if you know of better pictures that are more representative of him, please upload them. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same picture? If we truly weren't here to bash Don, then having no picture would surely be better than that picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.134.64.225 (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd grudgingly agree. Objections or opinions from anyone else? Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)