Talk:Karin Spaink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Karin Spaink article.
Article policies
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]
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.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Contents

[edit] The Dave Touretzky and Karin Spaink connection

I learned that he promotes her and she promotes suicides on a Usenet newsgroup called alt.suicide.holiday which has 14 confirmed deaths. The governments of the UK and Australia declared war against suicide promotion. http://www.prestontoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1789&ArticleID=909113 http://www.prestontoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1789&ArticleID=917087 http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/browse_thread/thread/82ec9b2013a3ec5b/7c6ffb3b5be5885f?lnk=st&q=Dave+Touretzky%2BKarin+Spaink&rnum=1&hl=en#7c6ffb3b5be5885f http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/26dfe79325ffed6c/53cf3c28c79b1f81?lnk=st&q=Dave+Touretzky%2BKarin+Spaink&rnum=1&hl=en#53cf3c28c79b1f81

I'm sorry, but I fail to see your point. Yes, some countries oppose web sites on suicide, but The Netherlands, where I live, do not. - Karin Spaink 22:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote in ruling

Can somebody, please provide a reference for the statement in the article that the court ruled that scientology was a threat to democracy? This seems implausible to me, given the fact that scientology has few adherents and credibility in the Netherlands. How can they possibly be a threat to democracy? Thanks in advance. Andries 11:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed the reference that scientology is a threat to democracy according to the Dutch court. I couldn't find it in the Dutch and English versions of the court rulings on her homepags. Besides the statement seems implausible to me. Andries 11:18, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
That quote is in the September 4, 1999 ruling of the Court of Appeal. The court ruled:

"Uit de hiervoor onder 8.3 vermelde teksten blijkt dat Scientology c.s. met hun leer en organisatie de verwerping van democratische waarden niet schuwen. Uit die teksten volgt tevens dat met de geheimhouding van OT II en OT III mede wordt beoogd macht uit te oefenen over leden van de Scientology-organisatie en discussie over de leer en praktijken van de Scientology-organisatie te verhinderen." (See http://www.rechtspraak.nl/ljn.asp?ljn=AI5638 ) Translated: "The texts prevously quoted show that in its teachings and its structure, Scientology c.s. do not shun the rejection of democratic values. From these texts it is also apparent that one of the objectives of keeping OT II and OT III secret, is to wield power over members of the Scinetology organisation and to prevent discussion about the teachings and practices of the >Scientology organistation." -- added by Karin Spaink, March 6, 2005.

Added back to page with full reference - David Gerard 10:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate validates

http://www.letteren.net/letteren/site/auteur.asp?auteurcode=2 Josh Parris#: 00:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article is 100% WP:OR or someone could not provide RSs

all said, this article needs a major cleanup. COFS 23:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As there seems to be some confusion on what that means, here is the relevant paragraph of WP:ATTRIB.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately.

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought

Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.

Note the difference between unsourced material and original research:

   * Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributed.
   * Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributable.

The only way to demonstrate that material is not 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. COFS 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you would indicate *where* you think that reliable sources are missing, I might be able to provide them. I think that the joined autors have managed to write a fairly accurate description of parts of my activities, although - of course - not of all. For instance, my work with/for digital civil rights organisations is missing. Karin Spaink 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I pulled the disputed tag. Considering it's been 7 months and the subject of the article has commented herself, I hardly think it is justified. Keith Henson (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)