I realize this is now a very old thread and comments may be irrelevant, but I wanted to mention one thing anyway
Over the years, I found that most of the bios I've seen on IMDb recounted interesting information rather than personal opinion. (After all, aren't opinions what these
forums
are here for?) The current bio may seem overtly flattering when compared to the original, but when taken on its own, it's pretty restrained
especially
when you consider it was provoked.

Frankly I'd much rather offend you than actual fans of Ms Baker.

I don't get it. You thought that the old bio was bad because the writer's opinion of Baker was clear which I agree that it was. The opinion clearly was not favorable. On the other hand, this new one (while clearly more flattering to Baker) also shows the opinion of its writer. Yes, I realize that most, if not all writing, does show the opinion of the writer. The beef with it was because it was not flattering?? The current one is really NO different than the earlier one because it is slanted just in a way favorable to Baker.
I didn't write the earlier bio and don't have a strong opinion in favor or against Baker. However, I am really bothered by the constant complaints about the old one simply because people didn't agree with it. It is fine not to agree with it. But IMDB NEVER should have removed it simply because people didn't like it. To disagree with something doesn't make it offensive, slanderous, etc. the many terms that I've seen to discribe the old bio and is NO reason to remove it.
I am glad that there is another Bio of Baker that her fans like. But to remove the other one just because it was perceived as not flattering or popular that's what's offensive to me!!

I can guarantee it was a student of hers at the Academy of Art in San Francisco that posted that bio.

I absolutely agree. She certainly deserved better and that was a very nice job.
As I recall, the "questionable" bio was written more like an acting review than a biography. But more than that, it sounded like it was written by someone with a personal axe to grind. I'm surprised it stayed up as long as it did.
The writer was careful to avoid extreme insults like "horrible actor" so if it were instead written about someone who was more widely regarded as even second-rate, it may not have been insulting. But how does a second-rate actor get roles in so many popular if not huge or highly-regarded films and TV shows? Why would reputable directors like Hitchcock or George Stevens hire second-rate actors, even for supporting roles? Even with a casting couch, it makes no sense.
I may not be a member of the Diane Baker fan club, but I've seen quite a few of her performances and not a single one of them yet has made me wince! I like her work. It's always perfectly believable and I think that's what matters the most.

Could someone tell me specifically what was wrong with the previous one? I'm very curious to know.

This message has been deleted.

Indeed! Obviously written by someone without a hidden agenda. Thank you.