Talk:Lori St John

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To tonwsulcer

In response to your comments and changes you have changed the article from a professional one to one of "junk" , in bad shape, as you say. Indeed there are numerous sources which support my first article, of which you have made a sensational one of low character with false statements in it, relying solely on a statement that you read somewhere that is not supported by fact or false in nature.

Professional you are correct; Ms St John's efforts of advocacy led to the case becoming an international matter of foreign policy. Her efforts galvanized worldwide support, including Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa and both the Italian and European Parliaments. You mention the City of Palermo only but her support in Italy came from Rome, Umbria, Sicily, Milan and several regions of Italy. That too is misleading. She is not an activist but an advocate, and she is also not an anti-death penalty advocate but an advocate against wrongful convictions. The incident with Nutter is not a "death row type" but rather an unfortunate incident that occurred as a result of her having worked to advocate for justice for O'Dell. She did not live with Nutter, nor did she have a relationship with him. Not everything you read in the papers is true, as you know.

False statements in your article, of which you got from a newspaper or two:

Lori St John never went to Boston University Law School. Lori's spouse was Joe O"Dell- The marriage between her and O'Dell was for a "Social cause" and was annulled as such by a judge, therefore it never existed and must be removed. If mentioned at all it should be mentioned in the context of its occurrence, in her desire to prove they executed an innocent man she had to obtain the evidence for posthumous testing- you yourself have seen that comment in the papers.

The words chosen to describe her role are not worthy of Ms. St John as a notable figure and spin the person in a negative light. Why would you mention a marriage being officiated behind bars and not mention her tour of Italy, her private meeting with the Pope or phone call from Mother Teresa, who invited her to Calcutta to stay with her? Her visit in the President's office in Italy etc.?

Your last statement regarding living with Nutter is also untrue as is "accused in multiples instances of holding her daughter hostage". Your inclusion of an underage victim, even without naming her, is appalling and not of place in this article.

Finally, her role as the founder and director of the Innocence Project, her law review article and awards and acknowledgments are all part of what make Lori St John notable. She is not notable for marrying Joe O'Dell, or the consequences of her advocacy, which led her to be a victim herself.

Lori St John is a professional woman, not an activist, an advocate against wrongful convictions, not against the death penalty, which she has been known to correct people when an interviewer refers to her in that way.

The prior material, all supported by fact, and of which I originally had on wp, and which makes Ms St John notable person, must be included in this article to portray her as the person she is, and not what you singlehandedly changed to appear as a sensational piece instead.

All of my statements in the article are supported by facts and sources, the ones you claim are opinion, subjective comments that have no place on wiki.

Thank you.

Respectfully, Galaxygirl0505 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxygirl0505, the article which you wrote here was nominated for deletion. It contained much

reliable sources. I improved the article here. My version is LIKELY TO STAY in Wikipedia. I have a long track record in Wikipedia, I have much experience rescuing articles. I know what I am doing here. There are rules to follow, procedures to learn: I know them. You do not. "References" which you listed sometimes result in dead links. Things which you think are "notable" such as her awards look like cruft. Tell you what: reinstate your version of the article and in a week it will be gone in Wikipedia. About details about Boston University, yes I noticed a discrepancy with New England School of Law; another site suggested she did not have a law degree at all. About calling her an "activist" or "advocate", well, that is up for debate. Nobody cares that "Her mother was a costume designer for the Hartford Ballet Company" like you wrote: total unnotable junk. Using Lori St John's bio as a so-called reference is amateurish. This whole paragraph which you wrote: St John was featured in the book 24 Hours in Cyberspace[18] for her work in the Joseph O’Dell case. Having created an online web page to gain exposure and worldwide support for Joseph O’Dell (1995) she captured the attention of Rick Smolan, the best-selling author of the Day in the Life Series. 24 Hours in Cyberspace is a live publishing event that took place February 8, 1996 across the world. It featured 200 (of the over 200,000 taken that day) of the most compelling photos and heartwarming stories captured by over 150 professional photographers. It was introduced by then Vice President Al Gore. [19]A photographic exhibition was unveiled at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History on January 23, 1997, featuring 70 photos from the project, of which Lori St John was included. The exhibit is "now included in an historic collection which includes the original Star-Spangled Banner and the slippers worn by Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz." -- junk. Trust me. If you want the article to survive deletion, leave it as it is, and after it passes, feel free to muck it up again. Respectfully.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This kind of back-and-forth is not helping to improve the article. The only thing that will improve the article is (wait for it) improving the article. I hope everybody calms down, including me. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]