Talk:Georgia mother loses child custody over humorous religion

Okay, the article has been restored due to the fact that we finally have some court documentation to back it up. Hopefully that will make it more acceptable. --Modemac 02:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• There are still major renovations needed to be made to this article before it conforms to our policies. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

More specific,please,MrM., for us to work on. What are the major renovations needed? Neutralizer 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Modemac appears to be a fairly new/inexperienced Wikinewsie. Some guidance to the editor would be helpful, I think, MrM. Personally, in-article links to source material bug me (but that's personal) -- source material should be linked at the end of the article. This permits easy re-use. Mine is not an actionable objection, by the way. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is as yet no independent confirmation that the case actually exists. I don't want to cast aspersions on any internet website or group, but the Church of the SubGenius, the followers of Bob, have been known to pull some hoaxes in the past. It will be very simple to confirm the existence and basic facts of this case when the sun rises in New York. Jason has said he will try to call -- as will I. The only recent development in the case is the release of the transcripts; we can wait a few hours before publishing. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found this one normal source

http://www.wroctv.com/news/story.asp?id=22255&r=l but I have to go to sleep. Neutralizer 05:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This article was killed several weeks ago when someone thought that it was a hoax. The editor also stated that "the Church of the SubGenius... have been known to pull some hoaxes in the past". . . perhaps it's time to cite such "hoaxes" that the SubGeni have done in the past. I don't think you can do it.

I've restored the old edit history. Nyarlathotep 13:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't know you had to purge history pages too. Nyarlathotep 13:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Nyarlathotep, it would have been bad to exclude this original work effort, I think, especially on an unsupported, assumptive hoax allegation. This story goes to the heart of the ongoing news items in the USA which deal with basic freedoms supposedly guaranteed by the US constitution; like "freedom of speech""freedom of religion" and "freedom of association". Neutralizer 13:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Only in America..... Ianguy - (now off to join up!!!)

There are couple of minor errors in this news article ("Orleans" is a county in New York and should be specified as such, Punch being a county judge; the final link in the article should refer to "WROC-TV", not "WROTC"). 69.204.116.80 00:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Huge problem in article content & presentation

As I was reading I thought, Holy Crap, how can a judge do this.. then I read other sources like the lady's own blog.. The judge didn't just decide to remove her kid as this article suggests. Her Ex husband Jeff filed a custody suit after hearing from the son about some of the crazy stuff the judge didn't like. The fact that the article doesn't mention that her son wasn't living with her and that the courts were responding to complaints by the child's parent and guardians is disturbing and demonstrates a very onse side POV type of article. The info is presented in a real persuasive way.. Just some thoughts.

Actually, her son was indeed living with her, until custody was taken from her and awarded to the father. Furthermore, as the transcripts note, the son was not present at the SubGenius events in question, and the father first tried to get custody with a false claim that the mother was homeless. When that didn't work, he then presented the judge with photos he had found online of her frolicking at an event (where, again, her son was not even present). This caused the judge to freak out and take custody away from her. --Modemac 17:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove link to Mary Magdalene

Her pseudonym, though a reference to Mary Magdalene, should not link to that article. They are, of course, different people.

I agree --206.116.168.12 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done - in the future use {{editprotected}} or these requests may go unnoticed. --SVTCobra 02:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)