Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:41, 7 June 2010

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Indiana C‑class Low‑importance

Frances Farmer is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for, and sustain comprehensive coverage of the U.S. state of Indiana and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Template Usage Change Patrol Articles Requested Become a Member Project Talk IndianaWikipedia:WikiProject IndianaTemplate:WikiProject IndianaIndiana C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can do: WikiProject Indiana alerts Requested Reassessments Indiana articles needing assessed Indiana cleanup listing Articles needing infoboxes Articles needing attention To-do Lists Articles needing images

United States: Washington Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.

Archive 1: January 2005-January 2007

"Legally insane"

"Legal insanity" is a state decided only by a jury in a court case. Unless Farmer was on trial for battering her mother and found guilty by insanity and then sentenced to the Western State sanitarium--or something of the like--I believe this to be an inappropriate citation and the entire phrase should be removed. 208.96.208.138 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Smells Like Teen Spirit

I think the claim that Frances Farmer is mentioned in the first verse of Smells Like Teen Spirit needs to be further substantiated. It's not mentioned once in the Wiki page for the song, nor can I immediately find reference to it on the internet.

It would be very interesting if it is true, I just don't think the evidence is clear on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastmav (talk • contribs) 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tone of article

This piece has a breathless, fan mag tone. Maybe fewer details of the "spiral down" would help.--Parkwells 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Posthumous acclaim" section is all about Cobain. Delete it as not related.--Parkwells 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Revisions

I got totally confused in the middle of a revision, trying to move the "Sensational Accounts" down to the end, instead of having it all in the middle of her life. I have to take a break before trying to work on it again, and apologize for deleting some text about "Shadowland". --Parkwells 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding a lot of your revisions to be frankly more confusing than what was there originally. I think the Trivia section needs to be re-instated and those comments moved back there--the way you've re-done it makes the article very disjointed and non-chronological. I also think we need to revisit the references--per the comment below, I think it's obvious that at least "Shedding Light on Shadowland" was used extensively as a reference, not just for the noted items, and it looks like the "History Link" was, too. It's fine to have them in both sections--there's certainly nothing in Wikipolicy stating otherwise. Just my 2 cents--don't have time to address any of this today, but I may come back later and attempt to get this back into some meaningful shape. 96.225.199.176 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

References

The website "Shedding Light on Shadowland" has no sources. The article really needs some more substantial citations.--Parkwells 18:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources are mentioned throughout the Shedding Light essay. I agree about the article, but I don't understand this comment. AndroidCat 22:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted to Parkwells' Talk page--I completely agree. "Shedding Light" is exhaustively sourced--there's virtually not a paragraph/statement in there that doesn't refer to verifiable source material. I also think it's a bit disingenous to remove it as a reference, where it's been for some time (at least since I first read this article), when it's used so extensively as source material itself in this article. 75.164.223.219 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Added all requested citations

I have gone through and systemically added references/citations, not only where they were requested, but also throughout the article where information was obviously gleaned from various sources. We need to do a thorough review of the History Link article and cite its contributions to this article. 96.225.199.176 (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity tidbit

The well known french singer/entertainer Mylene Farmer took her legal name after Frances Farmer.

71.245.158.31 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood Babylon

Hollywood Babylon has more details about Farmer, particularly her behaviour in court. I don't have a copy anymore, but perhaps someone who does could add the details (.... when asked if she drank, she responded something along the lines of "yeah I have a little vodka in my milk, what do you want me to do, die of thirst?" and listed her profession as "cocksucker".) Hairhorn (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood Babylon is a notoriously unreliable source and I can't imagine that it would come anywhere near passing standards for reliable sources. That's something akin to saying "National Enquirer" insists it's the truth. Not gonna happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Booooo... that book has its moments, good and bad. I'd bet there's another source for the Frances Farmer material, but it's probably buried in an archives somewhere. Hairhorn (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As do all gossip rags. Most of the juiciest stuff has been proven untrue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote was actually about her having benzedrine in her orange juice ("What do you want me to do, starve to death?") and in fact is one of the few things Anger actually culled from contemporary newspaper articles (which I assume would be deemed reliable sources). The "profession" she alluded to was not as vulgar as described (and repeated in the notoriously fictionalized film), but the more prosaic "prostitute," again as reported in many contemporary news accounts. I don't know how to properly reference things, but I'm happy to provide actual day/date and name of newspapers where these were published in January 1943. 75.164.206.100 (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Except this is not a gossip tabloid and I can't imagine how that could be worked in without being sensationalistic and unencyclopedic in nature. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why

Curious as to why this talk page and the main article are suddenly missing more than a month of revision material. At least the revisions are showing on the talk page history, but the article revisions are gone from the history. 75.164.206.100 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not. This just isn't that highly trafficked as a page that is edited. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is. For example, the whole "Hollywood Babylon" section had disappeared on the Talk page itself (without anyone reverting/removing it) and the last Talk page edit showed as the one before that, until I "re-added" it by making the edit including the "Why" section from the last diffs on the talk page history (sorry if I'm not being clear). If you go the article history, you'll see that all of the edits subsequent to mid-February (including some of your own reverts of vandalism, IIRC) have strangely disappeared. Just curious--it's no big deal, I've just never seen anything like this happen before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.206.100 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And just like that, they're back. :) Truly strange, unless someone is Gaslighting me.  :) 75.164.206.100 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No clue. Sometimes as a matter of housekeeping, administrators move articles and return them, but I have no idea of the overall rationale. Sometimes it is because someone has added certain content, for example, personal contact information of other editors or subjects, or content that could conceivably be libellous. Maybe that has something to do with it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually suspect an Admin playing with their tools hit a wrong button and my pesky questioning alerted them to their error, LOL.  :) 75.164.206.100 (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Caption

That photo is actually a Universal publicity photo from the 1941 feature Badlands of Dakota, so "late 1930's" is incorrect. However, Farmer was indeed labeled as one of the "Paramount Pretties," which was a catch all phrase Paramount used in those days for such stars as Dorothy Lamour, Veronica Lake and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.206.100 (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 75.164.206.100 (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That would require a reference to support it. And simply adding in "a Paramount Pretty" skirts the title of peacockry if it isn't covered in the article and properly sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Paramount Pretty" is the caption for a different studio promo photo used in Hollywood Babylon, which I notice has also been discussed in a previous section, so I guess we're all familiar with Hollywood Babylon. But, obviously, we're not Hollywood Babylon so we can avoid the peacockry. Rossrs (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be peacock if the caption carried something like "...called a Paramount Pretty by the studio..." and the photo was verifiably from the time when they did that. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that attribution would reduce the "peacockry", and I believe that the term was most likely used by Paramount's publicists, but I still do not think it would be appropriate here. The image is in the infobox where the main purpose is to show what Farmer looked like, and without accompanying text any descriptive caption would be without context. I'd consider it differently if the image was used in the article body where text could support a description. She's been called "beautiful", "tragic", "doomed", "talented", "unconventional", "modern", and I think one of her co-stars fondly recalled her as "a pain in the ...." These can all be attributed and reliably sourced but picking one of many available descriptions to the exclusion of others, I see as unnecessarily introducing POV in an area where it can be easily avoided. My earlier comment was a little sarcastic, and I regret the tone of it, but I think magazines, for example, do a good job of finding key words to attract the eye of the reader, and that we needn't follow their lead. Hollywood Babylon uses the "Paramount Pretty" moniker to heighten the tragedy of her situation and that's fine for that type of publication. I don't think it's so much a question of attribution or even reliable sourcing, but of relevance and of maintaining a simple format. Rossrs (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think attribution and context would tamp out any worries about "Babylonization" of the article, an encyclopedia likely should let readers know what Paramount called her in their own house-brand marketing terms, so long as readers are made aware that's what they were, product branding. Btw the phrase Paramount pretties is awful, low end, tacky 1930s tabloid trash-talk, it was then and it is now. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, this particular photo is a Universal photo, not a Paramount photo, is from 1941, and from her one Universal film, Badlands of Dakota, so Paramount Pretty would not be appropriate. I was simply mentioning that indeed Paramount used the (admittedly tacky) term for their stars in the mid to late 1930's. BTW, if you do even a cursory Google image search, you can find this very photo with the Universal copyright of 1941 still printed on the border, and several with "Badlands of Dakota" referenced. 75.164.206.100 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Along that line, I should also say (but forgot), I'm wholly neutral as to any weaving of the Paramount slogan somewhere into the text, I was only saying that if a consensus for doing so does show up, it could easily be done in an encyclopedic way. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be quite a useful comment to make in the article, especially as it was that type of branding and promotion that Farmer resisted, and it could be done in an encyclopedic way. The first paragraph of "A rebellious star" would be the likely place to include this information. We would only "Babylonize" things if we put it in the infobox. Rossrs (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, putting it in the infobox would be... highly unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

1) It does not make sense to remove a citations needed tag considering this BLP article wholly with minor and trivial exceptions relies on Jeffrey Kauffmann's website. 2) A BLP needs more and better citations than one guy's website. Kauffmann seeks to refute the claims made by others (Farmer, Arnold etc.), so it is rather relevant to include the work and claims he seeks to refute. To repeatedly remove details, which pertains to the article subject and their life and refutations stated makes little sense. We can not present one side and then not the other when both are interlinked. Also the dispute of Farmer's book remains to be seen, considering many psych. academics have referred to her book in their work. Similarily The Citizen's Commission on Human Rights' view on the state of Steilacoom is relevant to include. NPOV should be observed. Fragma08 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine regarding the template. However, you keep insisting that this is not an unreliable source. It contains direct quotes from Farmer's book. In fact, that is what you are using here, direct quotes from her book, copied into another book. Will There Really Be a Morning? was widely disputed regarding accuracy, both of content and of Farmer's memory. In fact, it is bad practice to rely on content from one book copied into another. And you are also relying on a website to quote the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights, part and parcel copied from one source, to the website and which you have copied verbatim from the website without properly citing the entire quote you have pasted. Again, where's the original source? That's the issue here, copied from copies from copies. You aren't quoting the Commission as you claimed here, you are copying a website that isn't the Commission. That's a problem as far as I'm concerned. It's basically copyright violations. As for denigrating the source used, take a hard look at what was sourced from there. Dispute any of it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the copyright violations. What I do see, is several books written by psych. academics citing Farmer's book. Where is the widely dispute regarding Farmers book and content - other than Kaufmann that is? Also would it not seem reasonable to include, what Kaufmann seeks to refute? Or else we should not include Kaufmann and his website either as the two are heavily interlinked and the omission of one preluding half is my concern. Books are used in many articles and BLPs are rarely supported mainly by original research or primary sources. The fact that pshyc. experts, authors are using Farmer as point of reference is important surely. It would seem perfect in line with NPOV to include Farmers version, along with secondary Arnold and then Kaufmann's dispute of former's claims. The CCHR, (quoted albeit through a secondary source so not really my claim) part can be rephrased or/added the full original reference which is Psychiatry – Manipulating Creativity, CCHR booklet, Los Angeles, published 2002, p.35. I am not sure I follow your last sentence and what you want me to look at. What and why are you accusing me of denigrating any source? I don't see how this will help this discussion and I do dispute any such accusation made by you. Fragma08 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to do this ad nauseum. You are using copies of copyrighted material that could and should be sourced from the original source, not a copy. Not for either source you added. I don't intend to go about hunting up the places where Farmer's memory was questioned or the veracity of her book was questioned. However, you claim that psych sources use her book as if it were a Bible, not a disputed source. It wasn't even fully written by her and it was published a full two years after her death and was "ghostwritten" by her friend Jean Ratcliffe. They aren't all her own words or her own story. That's one of the sources being used here. That's a problem if we are supposed to accept what's said in that book as Farmer's words. And I have a huge issue with relying on something affiliated with Scientology to source anything regarding mental health issues. I didn't say you were denigrating a source, my impression is that you are denigrating what I have to say about the Farmer book, and I'm totally uncomfortable with sourcing anything in this article that comes from Scientology. It keeps bringing up images of Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah Winfrey's couch. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you are already going at this ad nauseum and ad hominem by claiming I am denigrating anything, when I am not. Your tone is a bit incivil. Good faith goes a long way. My point is simply: that your objection against using Farmers book can only have basis, if we also remove all mention of Kaufmann, his theories and work (which may not completely accurate either). It is irrelevant, whether the quote of Farmer comes from a second persons book or if we jot down the page number from Frances' own book. That should solve it. Books are mentioned and quoted on wiki articles all the time. If you don't intend to hunt down sources to prove the alleged dispute. then your arguing against including Farmer's book makes little sense. One may ask why we should then rely on Kaufmann, a musician's, website as the correct account of Farmer who he never even met - contrary to Jeaniara, who lived with Farmer. Mentioning or linking CCHR to Scientology via their wiki entry is no problem on my account. Still bottomline, if you are going to include Kaufmann's alleged refutation of Farmer (1972) and Arnold, then both latter works become relevant - disputed or not. That is all. Fragma08 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The CCHR are not "mental watchdogs" (talk about NPOV, LOL)--they are part and parcel of Scientology. If quotes from them are going to be included, their affiliation with Scientology should also be included.174.25.148.83 (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that Fragma08 removed his/her "sidetracking" comment from this discussion, as Scientology plays a very important part in the dissemination of Farmer's story after her death. Arnold was a self-professed Scientologist, the CCHR (a Scientology group, which can be gleaned by a very cursory internet search) is referenced in his book as providing material, and both the CCHR's website and Scientology in general continue to use Farmer as a supposed example of psychiatric abuses which Scientology has waged a very public crusade against (e.g., Tom Cruise's infamous "debate" with Matt Lauer on the Today Show). The important part here is the verifiable factual inaccuracies of the CCHR commentary which Fragma08 has copied verbatim from the CCHR's website. One glaring example: Thorazine was not developed or tested or released until years after Farmer was released from Western State, again easily verifiable by simply looking up the Misplaced Pages article on Thorazine, LOL. (The hospital is not called Steilacoom, BTW--Steilacoom is the name of the original Fort there and the subsequent town that sprang up around the location). The "official" name is Western State Hospital.174.25.148.83 (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand by that there is some sidetracking going on, when main points not addressed and the manner of objections stated is questionable. I removed it as I didn't want to feed it. The repetitions not really leading anywhere either. Now we are talking about Scientology, Tom Cruise, Oprah. I am also aware of the difference between Western State Hosp and Steilacoom but news articles mention it as Steilacoom at times. Not objecting to mentioning CCHR's affiliation with Scient. at all. Fragma08 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to include a link to Misplaced Pages's own CCHR article, which clearly spells out the Scientology connection in the lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights 174.25.148.83 (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the content from CCHR is more error prone than at first glance. Farmer left the hospital for the last time around 1950. The content says "She was also used as an experimental subject for drugs such as Thorazine, Stelazine, Mellaril and Proxilin." Thorazine was not released for distribution until 1951 and not used in the U.S. until 1954. Stelazine wasn't approved by the FDA until 1959. Mellaril was not approved for use until 1962 and Prolixin wasn't approved until 1959. Testing would not have occurred in a state hospital a full 10 years or more prior to approval. It just doesn't work that way. And it doesn't support these claims. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to in my comment two above yours. :) The CCHR site is full of inaccuracies on any number of subjects. 174.25.148.83 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Responses are getting interpolated here (up above), I will continue to post at the bottom. A couple of issues: it's not "sidetracking" to (quite correctly IMHO) mention Scientology's M.O. and possible motives vis a vis misrepresenting what happened to Farmer. Fragma08 (in his/her retracted statement) wasn't even aware of the Scientology connection to CCHR, which is completely relevant, especially considering the fact that Fragma08's quote from them is littered with inaccuracies. Fragma08 also has perhaps misunderstood Kaufman's background as well. In full disclosure mode, I have emailed Mr. Kaufman for years--but while he does make part of his living as a musician, he's also a very well known writer and journalist with scores of articles published internationally (again a cursory Google will support this). Fragma08 also misstates Kaufman's relationship to the Farmers, at least tangentially. As his article makes clear, Frances' sister Edith and her nephew David provided copious information to him, including medical and legal records, etc. While one can question the Farmers' motives in this regard, to imply that Kaufman's research is flawed I think is unfair, especially considering the minutiae he uncovered about her and which is extensively sourced in his writing, unlike Arnold, for example. Kaufman also never questioned Farmer per se (at least that I can see--please point it out to me if I missed it), only Ratcliffe's revisionism and errors. Finally, it's also untrue that Kaufman is the "only" person questioning Scientology's and the CCHR's account of what happened to Farmer. I have in my own collection several newspaper and magazine articles covering these items, everything from (I'm not kidding) a National Enquirer to (I'm not kidding again) American Atheist. There have also been several tv shows that have gone into this, so it's not like it's the ravings of one madman. :) 174.25.148.83 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly 174.25.148.83 has selective reading skills so I will repeat: I did NOT retract my statement about sidetracking. Again, by that I do NOT mean bringing in CCHR's Scientlogy link to which I again have NO objection. Sidetracking as in evading the questions posed above which remain unanswered. Secondly I find it strange and unpleasent the amount of times 174.25.148.83 types my username rather than address me directly, when 174.25.148.83 is talking to me. The wild accusations are misplaced. I never claimed "that Kaufman is the "only" person questioning Scientology's and the CCHR's account of what happened to Farmer." Again sidetracking. However the article only states Kaufmann as sole reference on Farmer. The rest apparantly is too timeconsuming to find. And so the issue remains, if Kaufmann and his alleged research is to be included, then so must the very work (i.e. Farmer + Arnold), he criticizes be included. Or else 174.25.148.83 is advocating POV pushing, which is my concern. Just because 174.25.148.83 is a friend/fan/other of Kaufmann does not mean, K's research is the holy grail let alone accurate. The fact is 174.25.148.83's arguments are littered with inaccuracies. I am just not interested in feeding 174.25.148.83's sidetracking. I have already said what I had to on this matter. So no point in going around in circles. In order to maintain balance and NPOV on BLPs especially both sides must be observed. EOD. Fragma08 (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Fragma08, I'll address this directly to you: I certainly meant no disrespect by including your username in my replies above and I'm sorry if that has angered you, though I'm not quite sure why it would. My "retracting" statement is based on the comment you removed from this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrances_Farmer&action=historysubmit&diff=366343431&oldid=366291222. I also don't see how discussing these issues is sidetracking. You are the one who introduced comments from a questionable Scientology source, so when two of us question you about that, it's not sidetracking, it's very relevant. I should add that I'm not a "fan" or even "friend" of Kaufman's, I found his writing quite by accident. My connection is much more personal--my Grandmother was a psychiatric nurse at Western State and in fact was one of the nurses interviewed in the early 1980's by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer when it published one of the first exposes of Arnold's inaccuracies (somewhat ironic as the P-I also published Arnold's writing). My Grandmother is the one who first alerted me to the problems with Arnold's version of events. It wasn't until years later when I moved to Portland that the local paper ran a lengthy article about Kaufman and his Farmer research that I contacted him. You seem (to me anyway) to be very defensive about this for some reason. We're all just here to discuss this. The Farmer page is literally the only page I ever even access on Misplaced Pages. 174.25.148.83 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, to clarify, I am not defensive nor angry. Slightly annoyed perhaps, because my comments seem to not register. I am neither a scientologist, a Farmer fan, or such. The only thing I was hoping for was a constructive discussion on why the article needs more balance. I won't repeat in length; if we use Kaufmann's theories/research, then we must also use the work and issues, to which his criticism pertains. I don't think the discussion should be on Scientology and 3 times asserted, how it is fine by me to mention CCHR being "Scientology founded" and link to CCHR wiki article. Beyond that I think, honestly, would be WP:UNDUE. I am not taking sides as to whether Farmer, Jean, Arnold, Edith or Kaufmann are right or wrong. I am simply trying to preserve NPOV. That is really all the interest I have in this article. Disagreement is fine, but lets keep it constructive. About farmer not me, or Oprah. Thats all. Fragma08 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Would it make sense to simply add a section about the Scientology connection to the Farmer story? Then all of this could be dealt with encyclopedically--both the CCHR comments (including disputes about their accuracy) and the "other side of the story"? It would help if someone (other IP) could post details about some of these other sources, issue numbers, etc. 173.50.247.46 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A section on Scientology in Farmer's biography article? Hardly. But linking to wiki's CCHR article, so readers may click and look it up for further details. Perhaps one could mention "The Scientology founded, CCHR". Brief and concise. The dispute is already covered by Kaufmann. It is also my understanding that Farmer was an atheist which must contradict Scient? Fragma08 (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Fragma08, I personally find your tone a little troubling, perhaps it's not your intention. A talk page is for discussion, so unilaterally stating something like "hardly" or your "EOD" above is misplaced (IMO). My comment about including Scientology was made because evidently there is a connection between the coverage of Farmer's story after her death and Scientology. Also, you keep mentioning "BLP" but Farmer has been dead 40 years now. Am I missing something? 173.50.247.46 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. I actually find the tone in this discussion beyond civility or contructive. Very troubling. Difficult to work with. I pressume this is the intention. I have tried to have a constructive discussion but we are going around in circles. There can't a connection seeing as Frances was an atheist and there is also WP:UNDUE to be addressed. This article needs balance which it does not have at present. That is my only point. EOD and Hardly are fitting considering the above evasion etc. I thought this was meant to be a discussion on Farmer and her book and its inclusion. But clearly it is not. Fragma08 (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Indiana articles
• Low-importance Indiana articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Washington articles
• Unknown-importance Washington articles
• WikiProject Washington articles
• WikiProject United States articles