Talk:Gwen Shamblin Lara

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gwen Shamblin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070127204649/http://www.rebeccamead.com:80/2001/2001_01_15_art_slim.htm to http://www.rebeccamead.com/2001/2001_01_15_art_slim.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Section: Libel suits filed against Remnant Fellowship critics

@Dammitkevin, I do not understand your reasoning for reverting my previous three edits. This is a biography on Gwen Shamblin. To say "They aren't assertions about a person, they are about a court case" is ridiculous in my opinion. A large section with unreliable sources clearly violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The section clearly implies several things about her most of which is not sourced to secondary sources.

Note, I have created this account to discuss this without causing confusion. -PreviouslySeveralIPs (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Those references aren't being used to comment on Gwen Shamblin but are about the court case. Primary sources can be used in that context. You are just trying to censor information by pretending it violates WP:BLP. Dammitkevin (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dammitkevin, I am not trying to censor anything. It seems clear to me that this violates WP:BLP. Either it has nothing to do with the subject of the article and should be removed OR it does have something to say about the person and should meet the standards of a biography of a living person, which requires secondary sources.

This is clearly synthesis of material put together from primary sources and court documents, most of which is hosted on the website which is the subject of the libel suit. Are we really basing articles about living people on websites that were sued for libel? According to WP:Identifying reliable sources, the definition of a source includes the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, the publisher of the work. Any of the three can affect reliability. Clearly, the publisher here is not a reliable source on the lawsuit as it is involved in the lawsuit, besides the fact it is a primary source. -PreviouslySeveralIPs (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we should revisit this claim; usually it’s covered under a celebrity or enterprises “Controvery” section; watching the new documentary on her (HBO) and was shocked that Wikipedia didn’t offer more objective context on this; the article is obviously biased now, in favor of a cultish leader ThisDudeMadeEdits (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gwen Shamblin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lib.williamson-tn.org/Local_Authors/S.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224230555/http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=5409134 to http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=5409134
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/970505/archive_006847.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gwen Shamblin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001014139/http://www.karlloren.com/Diabetes/p31.htm to http://www.karlloren.com/Diabetes/p31.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

* https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Shamblin_Lara

• https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Shamblin_Lara Shirel Levi (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Church support for the Smith family?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Smith

Why is there no mention of the above in this article? Paige Matheson (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Because instead of adding it, you just complained about it on the talk page? Jacona (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not complain, I asked a question. Maybe you should read a dictionary instead of being rude. Paige Matheson (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I found a news story yesterday from the CBS affiliate in Nashville that interviews Gwen Shamblin Lara about the boy that was murdered and spankings with glue sticks.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4d4L_GPQfPg Paige Matheson (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Which church of christ?

We say she was brought up in the Church of Christ but our link goes to a disambiguation page. I'm thinking it is one of Churches of Christ as it seems to be an umbrella term. Secretlondon (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Churches of Christ is correct.

Requesting comment on the use of the word cult in this article

There has been a steady flow of edits adding and removing the word cult to describe Lara and the Remnant Fellowship. As this is proving controversial, it should be discussed here rather than edit warring, so I'm requesting that interested parties discuss it here before adding it to the article. Thanks in advance. Jacona (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for a week, using the biographies of living persons policy as it also covers the recently-deceased, particularly when people with a close connection to the subject are still alive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In the academic study of religion, and sociology, most scholars use the term New Religious Movement(s) NRMs. A new religious movement (NRM) is a group of individuals that affirm a common identity and unique set of religious beliefs distinct from those in the world’s main or hereto established religious traditions, as Gwen did. NRMs in general are often thought to result from cultural and social changes, such as dissatisfaction with traditional religion that leads to exploration of religious alternatives (Partridge, 2004).

Cult is a term that doesn’t refer to religion at all, but is applied to a social movement. People have intuitive feelings about how the word cult should be used, even when an organization or movement meets the criteria of a new religion. Take, for example, Scientology and Mormonism. Both were new religious movements that have evolved into a general understanding or definition of a religion. However, according to Pew Research, non-Mormons in the U.S. are more likely to label Mormonism as a cult. ~~PSYCHREL PSYCHREL (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And yet... it IS a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Will should be capitalized

Upon her death in 2021, it was found that Shamblin's will left none of her multimillion-dollar fortune to the church.

the word will in this sentence should start with a capital W. In this sentence it is not being used as a verb. 2601:700:C100:2700:89BA:141C:9A66:2AE1 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be capitalized. The word being used as a noun rather than a verb is irrelevant. Please review MOS:CAPS. Carguychris (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

In a legal document, "will" may be capitalized, but, ordinarily, it is not: "his last will and testament", "where there's a will, there's a way".--