Talk:Andre Tabayoyon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Article is sourced to (8) citations from reputable referenced material. Could use expansion, additional citations, as well as perhaps an image of subject, or image of a related public domain document. Smee 08:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC). (edit)

The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

	Scientology Portal 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. See comments

[edit] Arbitrary section header

Tabayoyon is mentioned in the Scientology article, as is his affidavit. Is there enough extra information to warrant his own page? Search shows mostly affidavit-related information on him. Gallup 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• An interesting comment. We shall endeavour to find some further citations for this article... Smee 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC).

A point of clarification

Article before I started to add some citations and expand it: Here, and Article state after I added a whole buncha citations, Here. Smee 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] OR / RS - Opinion

I came across this article when chaining through other articles. It appears to have quite a bit of Original Research in it that is not supported by citations. It is also unclear to me whether or not some of the sources meet WP:RS standards.

As I don't speak German fluently, I'd need to get a translator involved in order to be of any help here.

Hopefully the involved editors can tighten up the article and stick to sourced statements. I'll check back in a couple days to see if any help is needed.

Example: Specifically wording like: extremely secretive and well-guarded is OR unless cited.

..and if the DOD property is well-guarded, that does not mean that Gold-Base is.

Lsi john 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sealed

I've never heard that the complete case has been sealed. I only heard that the Fishman affidavit was sealed at the request of scientology. --Tilman 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This was done by Judge Hupp, and this can be read here [1] - it applies to "specified documents", not the whole case. --Tilman 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, and as you need a PAID registration to get into the PACER system - having one individual go there and say that something is "SEALED" in all CAPS - is a violation of WP:OR. Smee 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
  • NOTE: -- I added an explanatory sentence (which I commented out) that this is a violation of WP:OR, but Justanother (talk · contribs) removed it. Smee 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
• Golly, do you mean if I have to buy a book to check a source or buy a copy of an archived article then it is not a source. Don't be silly. WP:AGF, my friends or pay a few dimes to find out for yourself. But know, Smee, that you are violating WP:AGF here. --Justanother 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia:No Original Research

• User:Justanother does not understand that paying to see a book or an article that is a secondary source is a different matter entirely. But paying to view a PACER document, and then reporting back here to us what it allegedly says, in the article, is a violation of Wikipedia:No Original Research. Smee 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• Please make it easy for us and quote the applicable line of policy, Smee. Thanks. --Justanother 19:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sure thing -- Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. -- Wikipedia:No Original Research. Smee 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• And how am I violating that???. BTW, PACER is Public Access to Court Electronic Records. The operative word there being Public. The court reports the case as sealed on a publicly-accessible website and I noted that. How is there any OR there??? 3O, time, Smee? Or save yourself the trouble. --Justanother 19:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• We have no way of knowing in what context it says "sealed", precisely which documents are sealed, or what exactly you are referring to. Smee 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• I simply reported exactly what the site says and that anyone, you included, can verify. I removed the OR-ish interpretation that I assumed you were objecting to. --Justanother 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am looking through PACER and seeing no record anywhere of anything ever being "sealed", but rather simply the dockets and records of the case itself. Perhaps you are mistaken about this bit of original research you have conducted? Smee 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
  • From the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Court of Appeals Docket #: 94-55443 - Filed: 4/13/94 - Church of Scientolog, et al v. Fishman, et al - Appeal from: Central District of California, Los Angeles -

 10/4/94          Filed order ( James R. BROWNING, Jerome FARRIS, Edward
                 LEAVY, ): Aplt's mtn to seal pending proceedings on remand
                 and any further appeal is denied.  [94-55443] (wp)
                 [94-55443]

• Therefore, not only is this all original research, but it is incorrect information. This factually incorrect "note" should be removed from the article. Smee 20:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• That seems to be referring to an appeal. I am putting back EXACTLY what the court reports about the exact case that is being cited here. No OR. Yours is the OR. Knock off the edit-warring over this, Smee. --Justanother 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• ps, Smee, you are mentioned on AN/I in regard to DYK. --Justanother 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• pps. Smee, I self-reverted - got too close to 3RR. Smee, I suggest that you do the same. --Justanother 20:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I haved added that the motion to seal was denied by the United States Court of Appeals. As well as a citation. Smee 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• Kinda OR-ish (claiming that that appeal referred to the exact case and substance that the court itself says is sealed) but we can talk later. --Justanother 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is nothing "claimed" and nothing OR. And the appeal refers to the exact case, yes. The exact case number is cited in the docket. Smee 20:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC).