Talk:Fort Harrison Hotel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fort Harrison Hotel article.
Article policies
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
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Wikipedians in Pinellas County, Florida may be able to help!

Contents

[edit] Scientology Series Template

User:Terryeo removed the Scientology Series Template with the following edit summary: "removed the template which isn't appropriate because it is designed for histories". I'm not sure what is meant by this, plus the content of the template itself would seem to contradict this assertion. I can think of no reason why anyone, regardless of their feelings about Scientology, would object to an infobox containing handy links to other pertinent Scientology articles. wikipediatrix 04:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa McPherson

The section about Lisa McPherson misleads and only mentioned indictment but not an outcome and what it says about the coronor is also misleading. There are more improtant data that should be shown if this is to be mentioned. --Nikitchenko 19:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What specifically do you find misleading? A source for the info about the coroner can be easily obtained. wikipediatrix 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Missing data, to be not there it is painting an misleading picture of the McPherson death. --Nikitchenko 19:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That didn't answer my question. What, specifically, is the missing data that needs to be there? And specifically, in what way does its absence make the article misleading? wikipediatrix 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I am talking of YOUR addition http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Harrison_Hotel&diff=33871989&oldid=32886073 --Nikitchenko 19:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
And what specifically does my added data have to do with the missing data you spoke of, and still haven't answered my question about? And specifically, in what way does its absence make the article misleading? wikipediatrix 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is being held at Talk:Office of Special Affairs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Office_of_Special_Affairs#unreferenced.3F

I've simply removed most of it, it's irrelevant, since this definition is about the hotel, the Lisa death is explained in detail elsewhere (or should be :-)). There are other more relevant facts that could be added, e.g. "United Churches". --Tilman 07:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I've noticed that the Fort Harrison sports the trademark Howard Johnsons colours on the front entrance and roof. Was the hotel ever part of the HoJo chain before "United Churches" bought it, or are those colours a more recent addition? AndroidCat 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Scientologist deaths

This looked like it was taken from "The Un-funny truth about Scientology" YTMND (In fact, I think it is). The YTMND cites http://www.whyaretheydead.net/others/ars1032.htm :taken from an article from the St.Petersburg Times (in Florida). The actual article is at The St.Petersburg Times Archives. I'm going along to cite this now.

B|Cube|contribs 19:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't find that guy where he bounced off the limousine (supposedly). B|Cube|contribs 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa McPhearson and other deaths--

Are these really pertinent here? User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 16:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removals

Why has the hotel's pre-scientolgy history been removed?User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 16:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highly relevant info removed??

This information was removed from the article:

  • Margarit Winkelmann, 51, who drowned herself in January 1980 in Clearwater Bay after she quit taking medication for bipolar disorder and switched to vitamins and minerals as recommended by the Church.
  • Peter E. Frei, 37, who was found floating in a Dunedin waterway in June 1988 several days before the Church of Scientology reported him missing from his room at the Fort Harrison Hotel.

Also, the redlinks were removed from the top two, for some weird reason:

  • Josephus A. Havenith, 45, who died in February 1980 at the Fort Harrison Hotel in a bathtub filled with water so hot it burned his skin off.
  • Heribert Pfaff, 31, who died of an apparent seizure in the Fort Harrison Hotel in August 1988 after he quit taking medication that controlled his seizures and was placed instead on a program of vitamins and minerals.

It is highly relevant, and should remain. I will try to find some more reputable sources and expand this section of the article. Smee 17:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

  • Justanother, please stop making blatant baseless accusations in the edit summaries, this is highly inappropriate. Instead, use a short message, like: "reverted, please see talk page", and then bring your issues here instead of attacking in your inappropriate edit summaries please. Thank you. Smee 17:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
    • "It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith." See WP:HARASS. It is what it is, Ms. Smee. DO NOT do it. Please. Now, this article is not Scientologists that died in the Clearwater area (which is what the source is about). It is an article about the Fort Harrison (FH) so only deaths at the FH belong here. That seems pretty obvious to me. But I do appreciate your bringing it here on 1RR. I just do not appreciate the wiki-stalking. This is not impolite. This is not a personal attack. --Justanother 17:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Do not see issues in the shadows where there are none. The only reason I saw your edit was because the article was on my watchlist in the first place, after I had added the infobox. Please stop using your highly inappropriate edit summaries. And deaths at a hotel are indeed notable and statistically significant, yes. Smee 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Ms. Smee. You could have (should have) just left my edit alone. That would have shown good faith on your part. I came over here in areas that, other than an info box, you have no investment in and I made legitimate edits. That you followed me over here to revert and edit-war over my edits simply shows me that you are still missing the point of what my objection and the objection of other editors to your offensive editing practices is. After that exchange at User:Sm1969 talk, you still are doing it. What is up with that??? Yes, put the hotel deaths. Fine. But just the hotel deaths. End of story. --Justanother 17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please Stop your inappropriate accusations in edit summaries. As I have said, the article was on my watchlist for some time now. If you want us both to act civil, DO NOT use the edit summaries for accusations, instead, discuss politely on the talk page. Please, be polite, you said yesterday that you were going to shape up your rude behaviour patterns. Please do so, it will make it easier for all those around you to attempt to actually work with you. We want to. You just have to make it easier for us by improving your attitude. Please. Thanks. Smee 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
    • NO, I will not stop pointing out abusive editing in edit summaries. That is where abuse such as vandalism, edit-warring, wiki-stalking, etc. should be pointed out and it makes it that much easier to find it later. Here is what I suggest, Ms. Smee.
  1. If you see my edit in an article that you have not already substantively edited in then do not 1RR with me but take it straight to talk. I promise that I will address the issue with you in talk. To do otherwise will lead to the additional charge of stalking being brought to the table in any WP:DR action.
  2. If you are going to practice 1RR (say in articles where you are already invested and stalking is not an issue) then practice 1RR not "1RR; oh maybe 2RR; heck, I'll go 3RR". 1RR for you, 1RR for me, and we talk.
  3. If I think of #3, I will let you know. --Justanother 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So you want me to change without you changing your caustic behaviour patterns at all? That is just great. Keep on making baseless accusations, foul language, and abusing your inappropriate usage of edit summaries, but I am the one who is supposed to change. No. That is not how this works. You have to show me that you will be more polite. How are you going to encourage better behaviour from others by bull-baiting them? That is not how this works. There is a give and take. And quite frankly I am not going to negotiate with someone as abusive and hurtful as yourself unless you learn to shape up and be more polite and quit the inapproriate attitude and constant attacking and baseless accusations. Thanks. Smee 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Ms. Smee. I am obviously angry that you followed me over to these articles to edit-war and fight with me. I think that it would have shown good grace and good faith on your part had you simply let my edits stand. You should have just waited; not raced over here because I made an edit. That is abusive. I do not care how many articles you have on your watchlist. The point is that these two are not articles that you have any real history in; I made an edits; you raced over to revert them. This is about you, Ms. Smee, not me and I think I have done an admirable job of controlling my anger and simply stating the offenses in the edit summaries for ease of locating them later. --Justanother 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • This is ridiculous. I am obviously going to get angry if you make false accusations in edit summaries. These articles have been on my watchlists for a while now. Do you expect me to refrain from editing any articles that you edit? This is not simply about me, this is also about your abrasive style of behaviour. You will eventually realize that if and when you act more politely towards others, you will get the same respect. You have been called out before for violating WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA. Why not try a different tack for a change? When you see that someone does not approve of your edits, why not ask why on the talk page instead of making baseless accusations? Why not be more polite? I know it has not been your style of late, but try it and see please. Thank you. Smee 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Not ridiculous. Yes, I expect you to not stalk me and revert my edits. Absolutely, I expect that. When you see an edit that you do not agree with, why not just ask "why" on the talk page? Why not be more polite? You are EXTREMELY rude to follow me around and revert my edit. EXTREMELY rude. --Justanother 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We are going in circles here. Your perceptions are incorrect, I follow articles I have added to my watchlist. This bull-baiting back and forth is getting tiresome, so I am going to simply end it. We can address your abusive behaviour another time... Smee 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] New Here

  • Well, there's clearly lots of bad feeling here. Err, I've been wandering around articles for a bit now, I'm new on the scene, and since you lot seem so contestive 'round here, thought I'd say my hello. I reverted back to a recent edit after the extensive removals by Justanother, because, as a Wikipedia editor, I feel that the edit caused much relevant information to be removed, as well as the chief claim to notoriety of the hotel itself. The relevant information should be reproduced here, as well as the current information. If anyone feels otherwise, please tell me why they feel that way, but I agree with the direction of recent edits taken by Smee and 68.200.123.125. Thus, since concensus is key to making this article go in a good direction, I'd politely ask that future edits of this article, you know, be discussed, especially before huge chunks of information are removed. Peace! 24.224.195.30 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Raeft 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your third-party comments, and welcome to Wikipedia! Yours, Smee 05:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi Smee. A question that is seldom brought up is: How does the suicide rate for Scientologists compare with that of people in general? I think this would be important information however it works out. Steve Dufour 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That is a very, very good point. However, as the independent governmental census data of how many Scientologists exist, versus the RTC claims differs greatly... - that would be a hard statistic to estimate... Smee 05:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
The suicide rate in the USA is about 5 per 100,000 people every year. How many Scientologists commit suicide in an average year, would you guess? Steve Dufour 14:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea, this is a silly thread, because we do not have data on this, and this is not the place nor the time. Smee 17:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

A person could also ask how many people have stayed in the hotel over its 80 year history. Probably 2 per week per room times however many rooms it has. If it has 100 rooms that would be about 800,000 guests in the life of the hotel. In the USA about one person in 1,000 dies by suicide and about one in 1,000 dies by murder. (Suicide is a little greater.) So I would expect that out of the people who have stayed in the Fort Harrison Hotel about 800 have died or will die by suicide and about 800 have died or will die by murder. That would be an interesting statistic to put into the article. Steve Dufour 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot more factors including the biggest one of what are the odds of a person dying on a given day given their age, gender, income level, etc. This would then need to be matched up against the demographics of the Fort Harrison and the average length of stay. Obviously, of those 1600 suicide/murders you mention above only a small portion would have occurred during their stay in the hotel. The main point is that people die in hotels. It ain't news. Well, perhaps it is news (but so is a purse-snatching if caught on film) but it ain't special and it ain't encyclopedic. --Justanother 18:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have also brought this up on ars. From the information given by anti-Scientologists about Scientology suicides it seems like Scientology members have a lower suicide rate than the general population, despite the prominence given to individual cases by media coverage such as the famous Time Magazine story. Steve Dufour 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, here is what I come up with. The FH has 179 rooms for guests (it will have more once the new building is finished and some auditing rooms are converted back to to guest rooms). So let us say 200 guests at any given time. The US death rate for age 45 - 64 (a common Flag demographic) is 708 per 100,000[1] so we would expect 200 * 708/100,000 deaths/year for hotel guests or 1.4 deaths per year. Or over 40 since the Church bought the building. Of course, many people are sick before they die and do not go on vacation and terminally ill people cannot go to Flag (I don't think). Still, kinda puts things in perspective, don't it? Not talking about Lisa, that is notable for obvious reasons; talking about the other deaths, like the guy that probably had a heart attack in the bathtub and then it filled with hot water. Of course, that is the sensible explanation, better if we somehow try to make it seem that he parboiled himself to death in likely the only known case of "suicide by boiling". --Justanother 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading quotes

The fact that scientology claims the suicides are statistically normal is UTTER RUBBISH. Sucide rates are taken from the entire population, or occasionally from a certain demographic (e.g. men in their 20's), for the entire population. The cases from Fort Harrison always involve someone who is mentally ill (bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder etc), and is on a treatment of medication. Because of scientologists negative views of pyschology, they take their members off of any course of medication claiming it is not needed. They are instead supplied with vitamins and minerals, which obviously - do not help. There is a blatantly clear connection - the suicides being a result of people coming off their medication. As for the case of Lisa McPherson - whether or not the coroner was discharged or resigned after the case is again irrelevant. Lisa Mcpherson's body was COVERED in abnormal bites (suspected to be from cockroaches), rashes, and large bruises. It is already known she was behaving highly erraticly before entering Fort Harrison hotel. Therefore the staff of Fort Harrison are culpable, or whoever was giving them orders were. Scientology lawyers went all out on this one, and managed to get the case dropped by simply attacking the coroner. I know wikipedia maintains a neutral bias, but in my opinion this part of the article is not neutral - it implies there was significant doubt about the cause of Lisa McPhersons death. The cause was irrelevant, by the time she came out of the hotel she was in a horrific state. Sadly, the extent of her abuse killed her. If anyone seems to think there was no mistreatment with regards to Scientologists, it is known for a fact that she was undergoing an "Introspection rundown". An introspection rundown is only used on people who are leaving or becoming disinterested in scientology. It involves locking away a member and interrogating them until they change their mind. How much abuse that takes place during one of these rundowns is a contended issue, but the point is that someone WAS responsible for her being there. She was there for 17 days - someone is culpable.