This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
VanOrman's video about Lindland was the cause of considerable controversy among MMA fans and practitioners because of the factual innacuracy and because it tried to exploit and sensetionalise the typical view uninformed people have about MMA. It was the subject of much discussion (as was Lindland's profession in general), making it a notable entry to the article. The article on VanOrman is a result of her election race and victory in itself, so comments on her campaign are entirely relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.126.127 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only if you source it. Inserting your opinions doesn't work. This is the Biography of a living person, and we have special rules about what and how things can be added. Matt by chance? If so, how would you like it if some anonymous person from the internet started editing your entry and called what you did cage fighting? I'm guessing you wouldn't like it. Provide a source from a reliable publication (for instance The Oregonian) and the information can be re-added. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because i didn't provide references it doesn't mean that it was "my opinion" or the product of my imagination. I wasn't even the one who wrote it in the first place. No i am not Matt. Are you VanOrman? If so, would you like to drop the hostility and smartass attitude and at least try to keep a formal tone in discussion as you supposedly keep in your articles? So much for welcoming newcomers. 79.103.126.127 (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry my formal reply made you think I was being a smartass. As to biting, when someone knows how look at the article's history I don't consider them to be newcomers. As to VanOrman, no I am not her, as you can see from my user page. On the other hand you do not have a user page, so I don't know who you are and thought I'd ask if you were Matt. Also, no one said you made it up, or as you said "product of my imagination", but if it is uncitied then it comes across as your opinion instead of the source being cited. As to your sources you have now provided, do you having something other than a Yahoo Blog for the last part of the statement. Blogs are not usually considered reliable sources, and thus usually cannot be used. Here, it is part of Yahoo and is thus a little more reliable, but it is basically a column, i.e. an editorial. See this as to why that cannot be used as it is being used in this article (it could be used to support the author's opinion, but it would have to be clear that it is the author's opinion). Aboutmovies (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
