Talk:Noisy investigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Noisy investigation article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Hubbard's words on "noisy investigation" may be worth adding to the article: "When we investigate we do so noisily always. And usually mere investigation damps out the trouble even when we discover no really pertinent facts ... Remember, intelligence we get with a whisper. Investigation we do with a yell. Always ..." [1] -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect lead sentence?

This article starts "When a person has been labelled Fair Game. . .", but as I understand it, no one has been labelled "Fair Game" by Scientology since 1968. There is evidence that Scientologists still practice the same "Fair Game" practice without the label, but the sentence implies people are still labelled as such, which is incorrect. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The term is used in a document dated 1989 and published on Operation Clambake [2] ... While it may have exited official and public use, there is no reason to believe internal use has stopped, at any time. --User:Login 19:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC

[edit] Libel?

As a point of interest, couldn't these "Noisy investigations" leave the perpetrators open to an action for slander of libel? --David.Mestel 18:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what is said and where they said it. Different countries and different states have different rules about libel and slander. Vivaldi (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This weaselly sentence needs a proper citation

From the article as it exists on 4/21/06: Some Scientologists claim that their policy of "Fair Game" is no longer in effect, but critics of the Church maintain that whether the rule is still written in Scientology policy or not, the policy is still adhered to today.. I added a ^{[citation needed]} tag to this claim because the source that was given did not say what was written here. Also this sentence uses weasel words like "Scientologists claim..." and "critics claim...". Which Scientologists claim that Fair Game is not in effect? Which critics of the church maintain that the policy is still adhered to? Each of these things needs to be properly cited. I'm certain that reliable sources can be found for both claims (and the Scientologists claim might even have a web page on their own servers somewhere). But until it is properly sourced we should leave this citation needed tag. Vivaldi (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)