Talk:Fishman Affidavit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Scientology (Rated Start-class, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Edits by Marbahlarbs[edit]

Added link to Scientology Fishman page

Why was the Church suing Fishman in the first place?

The suit was dropped on request of the Church. This is not mentioned. There's a lot missing from this article.

Marbahlarbs 08:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Innacuracy[edit]

This article states: "However, under United States law, while the copyrights of court documents are held by the US or state Governement, free reproduction and distribution of the materials are permitted. Accordingly these documents may be borrowed from the court library, or copied for a nominal fee. This practice differs slighly from public domain materials which may be freely copied and distributed and freely altered. Copyrights on court documents are preserved to ensure that court filings and decisions are consistently reproduced." This is not true and should be seriously reworded to reflect the truth. Arnie Lerma tried to do this and "freely distributed" some documents to USENET claiming his actions were protected by fair use. He lost the case and was convicted of copyright violation. Reference: ORDER, RTC v. Lerma, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No 95-1107-A signed by Leonie M. Brinkema, United States District Judge, October 4, 1996. --AI 04:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

When copyrighted documents become part of a court record, the government can copy them for you and will do so for a small fee payable to the court. But individuals are not free to make or distribute copies themselves. The current version of the article doesn't explain this very well. But the point is that some people did obtain legal copies of the Fishman Declaration from the court, before Judge Harry Hupp sealed the file. --Touretzky 02:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Moved this statement from main article since it is confusing and may be incorrect:
Under United States law, while the copyrights of court documents are held by the US or state Government, free reproduction and distribution of the materials is permitted. Accordingly these documents may be borrowed from the court library, or copied for a nominal fee. This practice differs slighly from public domain materials which may be freely copied and distributed and freely altered. Copyrights on court documents are preserved to ensure that court filings and decisions are consistently reproduced.

Documents generated by the court are generally in the public domain.

Roadrunner 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"He lost the case and was convicted of copyright violation" -- that simply isn't so; Brinkema found for the defendants. -- 98.108.208.207 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the case was that the Washington Post was off the hook completely, and that while Lerma had violated copyright, it was a minimal fine with no costs assessed for Scientology. That memorandum opinion appears to be where Brinkema is finding that there was no copyright (or trade secret) violation by the Washington Post, and not the final result. I'll check for a reference that best describes the result and add clearer wording. AndroidCat (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OT VIII[edit]

The Fishman Affidavit contained among others, a version of the secret Scientology course called "OT 8". Some Scientologists have done this course and posted reproductions of it from memory to the internet. This proved that Fishman`s version of OT 8 was a complete fabrication. (emphasis added)

The text above was added by 80.61.135.225 (talk · contribs). The first sentence is factual and not in dispute. The second is probably true but is unreferenced. The third sentence is original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of what Fishman submitted in the case as OT VIII was removed with the edit summary that "cited source for Jesus information doesn't mention Jesus". The citation in that paragraph does not mention Jesus, but it is a citation for the statement that Fishman got his copy of OT VIII from a different source than he got the other OT levels from. Last time I checked, no one was disputing that the version of OT VIII submitted in the Fishman Affidavit contained that statement about Jesus, even if they disputed whether that was the real OT VIII, a forgery, or an old authentic version since superseded by a newer version scrubbed of such controversial parts. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable?[edit]

In general I don't think a primary document like an affidavit would be a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour 04:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability is established by the existence of multiple reliable sources and academic and journalistic discussion of the subject. It is not a matter of opinion. --FOo 04:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case this article should be deleted. No one is discussing the affidavit itself, although they might be discussing its contents. Steve Dufour 04:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm really tired of this sort of repeated tactic as well as a series of completely gratuitous time-wasting AFDs. What happened to your "deal"? AndroidCat 14:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody seems to be watching over Barbara's article. BTW there are about 400 Project Scientology articles, to me that seems to be about 360 too many for the importance of the subject. I would really prefer not to spend my time with them anymore. Steve Dufour 14:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Naturally, you are free to use your time as you wish. Since you are concerned with the wise use of people's time, I suggest you take WP:SNOW into account before proposing any more deletions. It is a waste of time to repeat this exercise for 360 more Scientology-related articles. --FOo 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
As stated, you are free to completely ignore the article, and any others. But the Fishman Affidavit is clearly notable, due to the widespread controversy and republication. Superm401 - Talk 04:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)