Talk:Philip Gale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philip Gale 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
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]

Contents

[edit] Arbitrary section break

shouldn't he be put under "people" in scientology?

[edit] Idea that non-RS sources are OK so long as they are "attributed as such".

As s/he stated here. They are not. Please see WP:RS. We write articles with RS, not with non-notable people's non-notable opinion as expressed in a "Letter to the Editor". --Justanother 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please DO NOT put my name in the subject header line. It is highly inappropriate. I can understand how you feel, but the letters are put in a context and are fine in this case. I will add another source from the Scientology perspective for balance in a moment. Smee 06:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
Second source added. Smee 08:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Again, Justanother, I request that you please DO NOT address me or any other individual personally in the edit summary history. That is not what that is there for. It is merely supposed to be utilized to describe the nature of an edit in brief. Further discussion can take place on respective talk pages. This is highly inappropriate behaviour. Now, as to our conflict, I have asked for a third opinion below, and we can discuss in this section here. I have tried to compromise with you and add balance from "the other side", from a different letter... Smee 15:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Smee, you do not "balance" one non-RS source with another non-RS source. --Justanother 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am still a bit offended at your mannerisms and the way you have conducted yourself in the edit summaries. I have provided my points above, that the letters from both sides of the aisle specifically go to the response among students about a difficult situation on campus. We shall wait to see what the third opinion brings to the table. Smee 15:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, we can both be "offended". I found your little sneaky questioning on the filter offensive too (if you had a question you could have just asked it from the get-go). So what. I find your inclusion of speculation by students' "Letters to the Editor" in a student newspaper to be even more offensive. Again, so what. Let's stick to the fact and policies and keep our feelings of being offended to ourselves. I'll try if you'll try. (I'll try anyway) --Justanother 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Tilman_Hausherr#Question_RE:_.22Filter.22 Took four tries to just ask what was on your mind. I found that offensive. --Justanother 16:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Justanother, please see comment from User:Grouse below, in which it is stated: Also, I should point out that it is not inappropriate to use another's username in a edit summary. Thanks. Smee 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Cool, so we agree that I can use your name in the edit summaries. Great. Thanks. I will, of course, not comment on you but only on your contributions in the ES. --Justanother 16:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, I did not realize what I was quoting... Regardless, I make a personal request that you please do not refer to my username in the edit summary. Please respect. Smee 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Oh, OK. I thought that you had changed our mind based on a 3rd opinion. On your request, I will accord you the respect I think you deserve based on whether your edits seem to be designed to improve the articles by the addition of properly sourced and relevant material or whether your edits seem to be designed to smear a controversial subject that you hold a particluar view about by the addition of non-RS slanted materials in an inappropriate manner and to the detriment of the project as a whole. That is the standard I hold any editor to and the standard that I expect to be held to. Believe or not, if your edits fit in the former category then I care little which side of the issue that you fall on. I should warn you also that I have a very good "nose" and when I call something as improper, it is usually held to be improper when adjudicated by non-partisan editors, as occurred in this instance. --Justanother 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

  • I have request a Third Opinion. This space below will be for that individual to comment. Smee 15:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't see a problem with including Letters to the Editor insofar as they relate to the incident at hand (see Primary source), as long as they are clearly labeled as such, provide insight into the matter at hand, and speak directly to the mindset caused by the incident. If they are included in order to provide material support for a particular bias - that is, if they are merely using the incident as a pretext to launch an attack or mount a defense - they should not be included.

These particular letters do not seem to meet the criteria for inclusion. One of them uses the suicide to raise speculation, rather than to improve understanding; the other dismisses a possibility of any other links. Neither appears to enhance the article significantly. If you can find other letters that would improve a third party's understanding of the circumstances surrounding and the reactions to Philip Gale's death, by all means include them. These, though, don't appear to be justifiable inclusions.

Remember that this is an opinion only, intended to offer guidance from a disinterested third party, and not an official ruling. If you are unhappy with this opinion, you are free to take your concerns to formal or informal mediation. Snuppy 15:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fourth opinion. I started writing this before Snuppy's comment, so I will post it.

A letter to the editor does not constitute a reliable source in this context. While there is some editorial scrutiny on a letter to the editor, it does not approach what one would expect from a reliable source—I would only expect that a letter to the editor was checked for libelous material and attribution, and unfortunately that expectation will not be borne out all the time. One would more properly consider them more like self-published sources.

Additionally, the opinions of random individual students are irrelevant.

Also, I should point out that it is not inappropriate to use another's username in a edit summary. I do not see any "attacks" in the edit summaries for this page recently. Yes, it is better to discuss on a talk page. Grouse 16:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Question - What do y'all think of my compromise: Students later expressed their concerns by writing letters to The Tech (newspaper), an MIT paper.  ??? Thank you for providing your opinions. Smee 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Personally, I do not think it is relevant or adds to the article. People express their concerns in letters to the editor about all sorts of things. That doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to report on them. Grouse 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Smee, I think that the 3rd opinions here should show you the point. Please remove it. I think that you are in 3RR land but please self-revert. I am not interested in counting. Thanks. --Justanother 16:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question for Third Opinion users - What about putting links to these 2 letters in the EL section? In this manner they are not being used as a source, merely a place for more information. Smee 18:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Again, I don't see how these letters improve the article or an uninvolved reader's understanding in any significant way. As I said above, other letters that are more on point might be acceptable for further reading, but only if they provide a greater understanding of the context. I don't usually see that in letters to the editor. Snuppy 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Duly noted, thank you. Smee 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sub-Genii Reverend

It's kind of overstating it to say "choosing to become a Reverend in the Church of the SubGenius." CoSG doesn't have an offical one week reverend course like CoS, and anyone who wants to can call themselves a reverend (or pope, anti-pope, bishop, etc). It really needs a cite that he called himself that. I'd change it to "member of the Church of the SubGenius", but even that isn't too accurate. AndroidCat 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My research indicates that there is an application and a fee. He was identified by the business manager as a Rev. so I think we can safely assume that he sent in the form and paid his $20 or whatever. --Justanother 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, research... An application isn't needed, there are no membership lists, and the fee is just for a mailing of bumper stickers and stuff like copies of the ever-handy SHOR-DUR-MAR. Rev is just a generic term for anyone who calls themself a Sub-Genius. Unless Philip Gale can be cited saying that he was a Reverend of the Church of the Sub Genius, I think you're really trying to make something out of nothing. AndroidCat 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
'Cat, the point is that his death is not about Scientology except in the sense perhaps that he choose to hurt his parents where they live by jumping on LRH's birthday but suicide is already the ultimate "make wrong" ("see what you did to me"). The real point of his death is that he was just another mixed up boy, into drugs and a bad frame of mind. The ill-intentioned would make his death about Scientology. Do I have to quote suicide statistics? It is an epidemic. The article is over-loaded with Scientology. Pull his being a Scientologist out of the intro; it is irrelevant and his SubGenius interests are more relevant but they can go from the intro too. --Justanother 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drastic changes

  • With regards to Justanother's last edit summary: OK, I will put one back but this was a mixed-up SubGenius drug user, not a Scientologist except by birth. The intersections with Scientology are overplayed. - DIFF, this is highly an inappropriate disparagement of the subject of the article, whether he is living or not. It seems that consensus is not for these drastic changes by Justanother. Let's (all) talk here on the talk page instead of utilizing these long edit summaries back and forth. They are not conducive to a constructive discussion. Smee 19:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Smee, the real mistreatment of that poor boy (a mixed-up SubGenius drug user, not a Scientologist except by birth) is using his death to make propaganda against Scientology. But maybe that is what he intended - after all he did jump on Scientology's most important date. --Justanother 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Where are you citing your continued mantra that he was a "drug user" from? If this article fell under blp rules, I'd delete your speculation from the talk page as potentially libelous and complain about your summary comments. Sadly it doesn't. AndroidCat 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Please read the source materials referenced in the article. I will be introducing a section on "Drug use" in the near future. His death is not about Scientology, just Amerika. --Justanother 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kristi's site

User:AndroidCat, this site's purpose is to disaffect Scientologists and get them into the Freezone. That is at least one of its advertised purposes. Kristi seeks to break the trust between Scientologists and the Church of Scientology by spreading one-sided and incomplete information. It might not be a HATE site as User:COFS said, but it is a personal website pushing a personal campaign, even though such people are usually driven by hate (or money). This is like quoting Palestinians in an article about Jews or the other way around. Such a site is good for a laugh or two, but not as a reference in Wikipedia, unless it is named in an article about "Scientology Opposition" which Kristi clearly is. CSI LA 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that so? And I was wondering why this girl is so active. Freezone, that makes sense. German influence, hmm? Money, too? Shoot me everything you have, please, Mr. CSILA. Misou 03:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"Just allege it" is not an argument. The site is based on official scientology data. One sided? Yes, scientology data. Then it can't be a "hate" site. --Tilman 05:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If "just allege it" is not an argument, why are you doing it then? The site is not based on official Scientology data or sources and does not even claim to be. It is an arbitrary collection of falsehoods and half-truths. The site is based on personal opinion, ignores international developments in Scientology and emphasizes on disgruntled members or ex-members (some of which seem to have been invented for that purpose). It has been set up for Kristi Wachter, who doggedly follows the purpose to destroy Scientologists through their group. As I said, it might not be a hate site, but it is focused on stirring up hate and mockery against Scientology members. It does not fit the definition of a reliable source for Wikipedia and the long list of WikiPolicy it violates has been quoted often enough now. CSI LA 16:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I might add that this same discussion is taking place here. CSI LA 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that it is "stirring up hate and mockery" amd that it is a "collection of falsehoods and half-truths". Start with one single falsehood. I will forward it to Kristi for correction. --Tilman 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SubGenius vs. Scientology

I've removed the section that tried to portray the Church of the SubGenius as a contributing factor towards Phil's suicide. Such statements as "The Church of the SubGenius teaches that efforts to improve conditions are in vain, a sharp contrast to the Church of Scientology, which holds as a fundamental principle that one "can improve conditions in his life..." strongly suggest that rather than trying to summarize what Phil was doing at that time, the author of this statement was using it as an excuse to portray SubGenius as a bad influence on his life. "Oh, by the way, the Church of the SubGenius says all these nasty things, but Scientology says good things instead. SubGenius bad, Scientology good." Thanks, but no thanks. --Modemac 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (SubGenius minister and proud of it)

Sorry, I took lessons from you guys (you guys as in Scientology critics). I can certainly see removing the "Scientology good" part. I think that you may have pulled too much "SubGenius bad", though.

--Justanother 22:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't "take lessons from us." What I removed from the article are unnecessary statements that have nothing to do with Phil, his life, or his death. You're using a standard Scientology tactic to "handle" the fact that this incident portrays Scientology in a bad light -- so instead, you try to turn the subject to suggest as though SubGenius literature was responsible for this tragedy. Nowhere has there been any suggestion or accusation that the Church of the SubGenius contributed to Phil's suicide, so your implication as such constitutes original research for this article -- even though you yourself, JustAnother, have ranted against the use of W:OR in Wikipedia articles. Even more offensive is the fact that rather than focus on this person's life and the sad facts surrounding his death, you are only interested in how Scientology is portrayed, and you only want it to be seen as something good. --Modemac 10:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
We should try to stick to secondary reputable sources that actually cite the Gale incident or mention Gale directly. Smee 22:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
I do not think that is a standard our Scientology critics would like applied to them but I am certainly agreeable if it cuts both way. --Justanother 22:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If we stick to secondary reputable sources that actually cite the Gale incident or mention Gale directly, there will be much less issues that crop up specifically about what can or cannot be allowed in the article. Currently, there are a few citations in the article from non-secondary sources that do not mention Gale at all, and these are spurious sources that should be removed from the article. Smee 06:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] SubGenius descriptive info

It seems that information describing Church of the SubGenius would be better placed in the article Church of the SubGenius, and not taking up irrelevant space here. Those are interesting citations, but they do not mention "Philip Gale" or "Philip" or "Gale" in the referenced material. And if we were to include some sort of descriptive info on the Church, it would be best to include what it is most known for which is not that particular quote but its sense of humour and parody nature. Smee 06:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

My point exactly, and thank you. The reference to suicide that Justanother points out is solely an attempt to make the Church of the SubGenius look bad, so that Scientology looks good in comparison. It has everything to do with Scientology's image. It has nothing to do with the subject of this article, namely the person in question, Phil. --Modemac 06:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
All the more reason to stick to reputable secondary sources in this article. Smee 06:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
And on that note, I have found some more reputable secondary sources that I will shortly be adding to the article with citations. Smee 06:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] References tag

The New Times LA may not qualify as a reliable source as per WP:RS and WP:V. I do note that it is cited as a source no less than 7 times. I grant that, with the possible exception of the last three citations, they're all pretty noncontroversial, but the last three could have problems. If there are any better sources available to verify this content, I think they should be inserted in place of the New Times. If not, then there might be a problem of whether they meet reliability and verifiability requirements. John Carter 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  • How do you feel that it does not qualify WP:RS and WP:V ? I mean I know it's always best to have as many sources as possible for facts, but it seems to be a good valid source. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Earthlink

I removed the following sentence from the "Software programming" section of the article:

Earthlink was founded by fellow Delphian alum, Sky Dayton, and heavily bankrolled by Scientologists, including Reed Slatkin, a disgraced ponzi scheme perpetrator who is currently serving a prison sentence for his crimes.

It seemed a bit off topic here, and more appropriate for an article on Earthlink (after modifying some POV wording). WDavis1911 (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)