Talk:Peter H. Gilmore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peter H. Gilmore article.

Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
 WikiProject Religion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article falls within the scope of the Left Hand Path work group. If you are interested in Left Hand Path-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help.


Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 March 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.


Contents

[edit] Vandalism

This page is recieving quite a bit of vandalism. Can something be done to stop this or slow it down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.71.78 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[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)

Yeah, Bill Clinton and Peter H. Gilmore are totally comparable!!!! -- 147.153.84.3 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that they are actually the same person.
  • 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.

[edit] Merge from The Satanic Scriptures

Please merge relevant content, if any, from The Satanic Scriptures per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Satanic Scriptures. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:35Z

[edit] Split into The Satanic Scriptures

From what I can gather from the above entry, the original article about The Satanic Scriptures was deleted because it was made before the book achieved general release, thus violating wikipedia's policies on unpublished works as writen down in the Wikipedia:Notability (books). However, that was almost a year ago, and the book has since seen a full release ( Amazon Page

Under these circumstances, I would like to suggest that we now reverse the original decision and restore the page to how it was, before setting to work on bringing it up to date. All in favour? Devilmaycare (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as nobody has made any complaints in the past week since I put up the message, I have assumes that everybody is cool with the idea and have restored the page, and brought it up to date. Take a look and see what you think Devilmaycare (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Garonyldas (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)