Talk:Bob Minton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Scientology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

POV[edit]

I've added a POV tag instead of reverting. What is missing is the outcome of the "omnibus hearings" (both before Judge Schaeffer and Judge Baird), which was no so good for scientology and Minton. --Tilman 17:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[1][2] --Tilman 10:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is not NPOV. The second half sounds like it was written by the damn Church of Scientology itself. The fact is that scientology extorted Minton, and he gave up his criticism because he couldn't stand to have his life dominated by court cases. The "quote" from Bob is completely unsighted (by wikipedia standards) and is highly unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.205.125 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Needs a whole re-write to make it NPOV, and coherent. Article don't really do much, apart from confuse.

The second part is written all to passionately from Scientology's POV, don't you think?


I agree, the article needs to be researched and fleshed out. As it stands it's a barely coherent jumble of biased proceedings. --Joseph Duchesne 16:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

fixed quote to view more easily


This article is very biased toward Scientology's view of events. I agree that's it's basically an incoherent string of conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.13.76 (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


It seems 9 of the sources in POV - challenged area come from one newspaper, and many references from one author. Without more sources, it is difficult to form a judgment on the authenticity of the some statements, especially when some quotes are explained to be hearsay, but are directly attributed. terms such as 'allegedly' may be in order. It would be proper, for instance, to source quote court texts if they are available, and not someone's recounting of court proceedings. --Betaben (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Terrible article[edit]

This article is a mess and IMO needs to be completely re-written. About 2/3 of it is "ceases criticism" with only 1/3 about his actual work fighting Scientology. I would guess this is Scientologist editors trying to discredit him. Obviously, Bob Minton is notable for being an outspoken critic of Scientology, not for stopping his criticism. That should be in their, but it should be only a few sentences, with most of the article about his work opposing Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.40.183 (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I partially agree, insofar as that this is a terrible article. However, it needs to be expanded, not slashed. Minton's cessation of criticism, and switching over to the other side, was an extremely important part of his history, and its effects nearly destroyed Scientology criticism for years. However, prior to that, he had a lengthy history of effective actions against Scientology. One specific example is his offer of $350,000 to anyone who brought forward information that resulted in Scientology losing its tax exemption. The activities of the Lisa McPherson Trust were also very important, and involved many other Scientology critics and advocates, including Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun, the recent defectors from the cult who are now themselves highly prominent in Scientology criticism. This article should accurately reflect a lengthy career of criticism, as well as the dramatic about-face. 67.82.94.159 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

References[edit]

Some cites which may not be in the article yet:

That includes significant as well as passing mentions. AndroidCat (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

date inconsistency[edit]

The birth date is a year off from the "births" category at the bottom. I can't fix it. Keith Henson (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)