Talk:Lisa McPherson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Jeff Jacobsen 2 Query 3 Categorization 3.1 Category:Scientology 3.2 Category:Scientologists 3.3 Recomended New Category, Category:Dead Scientologists 4 More info 5 blatant POV problems

[edit] Jeff Jacobsen

Jeff Jacobsen has released the text of http://www.lisamcpherson.org/ under the GFDL, so that can be cut'n'pasted here to continue working on - David Gerard 12:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Query

I also had a question. This page says that felony charges were brought against the church. Is this correct? I thought criminal charges could only be brought against individuals. Am I mistaken? Thanks. 24.131.12.228 23:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just one query, why does it say the McPherson case has been settled but is 'still active'? Doesn't make much sense, and needs to be clarified.

[edit] Categorization

WP:CLS Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes
"An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software — except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio."

[edit] Category:Scientology

Anyone think that maybe the category "Scientologists" is a bit strange considering her story? I don't mean to insinuate that we censor Wikipedia because of people's feelings toward an issue, but being murdered by Scientologists would seem to move one spiritually away from such an organization. I'm going to change the category to Scientology for now for accuracy, but I'd like to see what others think on this issue. --TheGrza 03:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

You're claiming a dead person has renounced their religion after their death??User talk:TheGrza#Lisa McPherson Please cite a reference.--AI 01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake. After she was brutalized, she renounced scientology.--TheGrza 17:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Until such time as we have a Category:Former Scientologists, I have to agree that putting her in "Scientologists" is a bit inappropriate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion.

But, until that time, Category:Scientologists is appropriate.--AI 01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Scientology#Victims:

"Let's not sprinkle the article with victims of Scientology"

I suggest the same should apply to Category:Scientology.--AI 01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poor extrapolation from an article to a category. A category reflects everything in that category; an article reflects an overview of that subject. It is perfectly reasonable in the context of an article to trim back or move to its own article a list that is ballooning out of proportion, whether that be a list of a group's adherents, a list of a group's victims, a list of a group's critics, a list of fanon facts, or whatever. There is really no comparable argument to be made for removing people from a category.

In the meantime, I've followed your own lead: Like L. Ron Hubbard, Lisa McPherson has a significance to the subject of Scientology that goes beyond and in her case outweighs the significance of her being a member before her death, making it relevant to place her in Category:Scientology as well as Category:Scientologists. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to have a category and one of it's sub-categories both on one page. Lisa McPherson relates to scientology in the larger sense because she is so often used as the poster girl for criticism toward clams, while a list of scientologists would seem to be of a more minor interest for those interested in scientology at large.--TheGrza 17:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

POV...

POV what? It's a talk page, designed for POV.--TheGrza 23:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

she was a scientologist, she has a page. it's not rocket science, guys. Joeyramoney 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Scientologists

Category:Scientologists contains lots of ex-Scientologists. And furthermore, McPherson was a Scientologist pretty much up to her death - David Gerard 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it ended badly between the two. I don't they reconciled in Xenu-Heaven, either. I don't have a problem with former scientologists being listed under the Scientologist cat (a former cat would make more sense but it's a minor quibble), it's just that this article relates more to scientology as a topic; it doesn't contribute to scientologists as much.--TheGrza 15:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

TheGrza, I disagree. IMHO, presenting Lisa in the main category serves a POV. Besides, categorization as you suggest is contrary to wikipolicy.--AI 22:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with David Gerard: Unlike an article such as L. Ron Hubbard, Lisa McPherson does not define Category:Scientology. --AI 22:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we have to look at why there is a Lisa McPherson article in the first place. There have been millions of people in the history of the world killed by some religious sect or another, both from within and without. The vast majority don't have articles because their influence as martyrs to a system or as practitioners of a religion is insignificant to the larger society. McPherson's article appears because it is often cited as the most heinous, vile, tragic, insane thing Scientology has ever done. Whether true or not, her death is a mantra for anti-clam groups, while her life never really affected society on a large scale. For this reason, her life as a scientologist is not the point of the article, but the article exists to detail her murder and the subsequent use of her death as scientology criticism. Whew. I'm having a hard time seeing why it is either inaccurate or "highly POV", or how this conversation has been resolved to the point that you're reverting edits and claiming that the talk page will bear you out in some way.--TheGrza 23:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

No. For one thing, what do you mean by "[McPherson] is often cited as the most heinous, vile, tragic, insane thing Scientology has ever done." There are too many lies and rumors out there, Scientology was not at fault for her death. If you think her death is a mantra for the Scientology critics, then you can categorize it accordingly.--AI 2 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

I think he answered "what do you mean" quite succinctly, AI. "Whether true or not, her death is a mantra for anti-clam groups, while her life never really affected society on a large scale." It might be your POV that Scientology was not at fault in the death of Lisa McPherson, but just as patent nonsense is different from "a lucid explanation of a belief someone thinks is nonsensical" and a "hoax article" is different from "an article about a hoax", we do not censor a POV held by a great number of people just because one Wikipedia editor holds the POV that their POV is "lies and rumors". -- Antaeus Feldspar 2 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Irrelevant ad hominem.--AI 2 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Incorrect, again. You really shouldn't go past your misunderstoods, AI. Ad hominem is when a person's personal characteristics or personal situation is cited to suggest that this makes their position incorrect. To point out a case where someone attempted twice to speedy-delete an article which met none of the criteria for speedy deletion, and suggest that everything those efforts indicate about that person's grasp of Wikipedia policy should be taken into account, is not ad hominem. -- Antaeus Feldspar 3 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Lisa McPherson was a Scientologist and this article belongs in Category:Scientologists. This article does not define Scientology nor is it in a category higher than Category:Scientology. See WP:CLS --AI 2 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)

I see it has now been added to Category:Scientology controversy. Since this sub-category, unlike Category:Scientologists, does reflect the major impact she and the circumstances of her death had, I can accept this in lieu of Category:Scientology. -- Antaeus Feldspar 3 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

[edit] Recomended New Category, Category:Dead Scientologists

I looked at the list of Scientologists on the wiki and I've noticed that quiet a few of them (like Lisa) are dead so instead of labeling them "Former Scientologists" since most of them never did leave the CoS (this includes Lisa since there is no evidence that she ever left the organization) we should instead create a new category called "Dead Scientologists" and place them in there instead. The Fading Light 5:06 22 March, 2006

Good idea. Go ahead and be WP:BOLD and do it! wikipediatrix 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how... The Fading Light 7:47, 22 March 2006

Scratch the above I figured it out... Category:Dead Scientologists The Fading Light 8:27, 22 March 2006

The claim that 'the hospital wanted her to be psychologically cared for. However, some Scientologists arrived and stated that McPherson did not believe in psychiatry' makes no sense. Psychology and psychiatry are not the same thing!

shhh... don't tell Scientologists that.--Pewpewlazers 06:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides, psychology and psychiatry may not be the same thing, but they are very closely related, and whoever took that down might have paraphrased.--Vercalos 09:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More info

This page seems to have some useful information, but I doubt it's a proper source of information, though it cites sources for most of them.. Can anyone find a proper source for this?

June 2006. Although in May 2004 a settlement was announced in the press, the estate HAS NOT SETTLED. Scientology's counterclaim against the Lisa McPherson Estate remains open and no settlement documents have been signed. No money has changed hands. Scientology is stalling, the family has received nothing so far, and the courts -- as ever in this case -- are of no help.

It would probably be good to get this information into the article, if we can get a reputable source on it.--Vercalos 09:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blatant POV problems

In the first place, I'm not sure this article should even exist - do we give articles to everyone else who ever died in circumstances connected to the Catholic Church or other religions? How exactly is she notable? But even so, the intro is unacceptable. It says McPherson "was a Scientologist who died while in the care of the Church of Scientology."

That's ridiculous. The entire Church of Scientology as a whole, was NOT responsible for her care. Surely you wouldn't let an article say "such and such was molested while in the care of the Catholic Church"? If a tornado destroyed a synagogue, would you say the people inside "died while in the care of the Jews"? Even if a Methodist minister shot his entire congregation, would you say that HE shot them, or would you say they "died in the care of the Methodist Church"? Highfructosecornsyrup 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology certainly claims credit whenever someone experiences any improvement in circumstances where a Scientologist and therefore Scientology could possibly claim credit -- check out here, for instance, do you think there's any doubt that anyone would read that and not think it was saying "Scientology can bring people out of comas!" It takes careful reading to realize that it doesn't actually go out on a legally vulnerable limb and say "Scientology's 'spiritual training' brings people out of comas", it quotes a reporter in a "local newspaper" which makes that dubious claim.

As for your supposed analogies, they're quite frankly crap. "If a tornado destroyed a synagogue, would you say the people inside "died while in the care of the Jews"?" No, because no one can predict a tornado. There is nothing that the synagogue could have done to prevent the tornado, or could have been expected to do to minimize the damage. Pray tell, how is this comparable to Lisa McPherson, a woman who clearly needed medical care, and should have received medical care, and was removed from medical care, not just by Scientologists, but because of the beliefs and practices of Scientology, which held that she should be treated with Scientology instead (despite the early false claims by the Church that she had merely gone with them for "rest and relaxation"). Even when they finally did decide that she should be given real, actual medical care, the only way they are not responsible for her death is if she died within two minutes of them setting out for the hospital. Why? Because the nearest hospital was only two minutes away and instead they went to a hospital forty-five minutes away. Their insistence on bringing her to a Scientologist doctor almost certainly is what cost her her life.

If someone was hurt by a tornado because the tornado hit the synagogue they were in, no one would blame those who ran the synagogue. If, however, the rabbi said "no, no, this person who's been hurt by the tornado -- let's not bring him to actual doctors who know what they're doing; let's treat him ourselves with unscientific Jewish remedies" and later "well, I guess we have to bring him to an actual doctor because he's in really bad shape but let's drive an extra forty-five minutes so we can bring him to a Jewish doctor" -- it is ludicrous to think that no one would notice or note that connection. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in there did you really explain why you think Wikipedia should take the position that she "died while in the care of the Church of Scientology." She died in the care of a few Scientologist employees at the Fort Harrison Hotel. It's not the same thing, no matter how much you want the Church as a whole to be blamed. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. "a few Scientologist employees at the Fort Harrison Hotel"? Do you think anyone buys that? You might as well claim that Operation Snow White wasn't an action of the Church of Scientology, just "a few Scientologist employees". -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you respond to my sincere concerns for fairness with dismissive and uninformative cracks like "Oh come on, do you think anyone buys that?" I don't understand your attitude. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

She died while in the care of the CoS. She had a C/S (case supervisor) watching over the process. There are records related to her stay and the efforts made to get her to eat/drink. This incident was a total fluke and should never have happened (LRH specifically said that the CoS is not set up to handle psychotics). It was a violation of policy and a complete screw-up. But it was the CoS' screw-up and they have settled with the family to the satisfaction of the family. Everything else is the critics having a field day with this poor girl's tragic demise. Notable, in and of itself, no. Wrongful death happens all the time to organizations. This was a fluke. The notability is a self-fulfilling kind of notability. She is notable because critics have worked very hard to make her notable and used her as a lightning rod. But that is likely notable enough and I doubt this article will go away any time soon. However, it can be corrected if there are problems with NPOV. --Justanother 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the CoS was legally liable, but was the Church as a whole really responsible for her death? I seriously doubt that most Church higher-ups, let alone casual members of the Church, had ever heard of her until this happened, and I still don't think it's fair to blame the Church as a whole for what goes on in any of its locations, not even Clearwater. And why is Lisa McPherson's name listed alongside DM's as important people in the Church on the template, when that's just ludicrous? As you say, wrongful death happens all the time to organizations. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am sure that a number of FSO staff were aware of the situation and I would find it hard to believe that the Captain FSO did not know that they were caring for a psychotic. I doubt it would have gone further uplines than that while she was alive but who knows. My guess is it should never have happened in the first place but once they had her no-one could bring themselves to give her back to the psychs. I can forgive them for that and I imagine Lisa would too. --Justanother 03:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the whole point of the controversy surrounding her death is the involvement of the church. That being said, would it help if the sentence was changed to "...while in the care of the _____ branch of the Church of Scientology"? (emphasis added). That specificity would address your apparent concern that the sentence is overbroad, branding the entire church, while still retaining the meaning. As for the notability issue, we don't make judgments about whether something is notable; the world does. Our notability standard can be stated as: if the wider world has addressed a subject by addressing it as the primary subject of non-trivial written material in reliable sources, then it is notable.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Left. Thanks for the advice. Yes, that helps. I am not really arguing the notability - it has been made notable; that is not wikipedia's doing. It is really a pretty simple case. Some Scientologists took her out of the hands of the psychs. The FSO (Flag Service Organization) tried to nurse her through the psychotic incident (against their own policies). They failed miserably. No criminal charges were pursued. The Church paid civil damages. If that story were presented in an NPOV fashion there you would have it. --Justanother 03:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to make this more neutral by fleshing it out and removing some OR and OR synthesis. The last bit I would dispute is whether she was ever really put on the introspection rundown. Do we have an RS that claims that she was?? What I get from looking at the source reports from the FSO is that they were simply trying to keep her fed and hydrated and "unrestimulated" in the hope that she would come out of it. They did a piss-poor job but I don't see any introspection rundown there. --Justanother 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tilman, for the citations. I just looked at the introspection rd one and it looks fine. Guess she never made it past the "isolation step" (if such exists, I am really not very familiar with what is on the rundown, just a bit from critic sites). --Justanother 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all just a google search away. --Tilman 17:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Highfructosecornsyrup, I have done some work on the article to bring it into good agreement with the facts of the case esp. as regards the criminal case. That is what I noticed as needing some work. What else do you see that you feel needs to be addressed in order to pull the POV tag? The very existence of the article not included (smile). --Justanother 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How about:

1. "Since her death there have been regular pickets outside Scientology offices on or around the anniversary of her death." Is this really relevant? Does it need to be in the intro paragraph?
2. Even though I don't dispute that it's factual, it would still be proper, I think, to have a specific source attached to the statement that she removed all her clothing on the street.
3. "some Scientologists arrived". "left with the Scientologists". Who are "the Scientologists"? Do they not have names? Referring to them by their religion rather than their names makes sense only if one wants to connect that religion to the circumstances as much as possible. It would be better to say that they were from Flag, rather than just blanket-referring to them as "the Scientologists".
4. "..."rest and relaxation" according to the Church of Scientology, but Church logs [1] from McPherson's stay there..." The reference link for this shows that the logs are FSO logs, not "Church logs". This pattern of treating whatever happens in any branch office of the Church as being representative of the Church itself is just plain wrong.
5. Neither this article nor the Jesse Prince article bothers to mention that a Judge found Prince to be a not-credible witness.

--Highfructosecornsyrup 15:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't work on it now though you may care to. The Jesse Prince bit is basically off-topic POV-pushing OR (OR juxtaposition) made even more unnecessary as the OSA guy admitted destroying docs. Better to just remove the Prince bit than get into showing him to be biased. The pickets are relevant to the article, though perhaps not in the intro but maybe. Missing sources can be added; you should simply be able to use the existing sptimes sources as they contain almost all relevant info. Once FSO is clearly identified as a branch of CoS it is appropriate to reference FSO rather than CoS. The folks that took her out are probably best described as "fellow Scientologists" but it really depends on what the RS says. --Justanother 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)