Talk:Mark Rathbun

Marty Rathbun is still listed as executive in this website

http://www.foundingchurchdc.org/dc/profiles.htm

and here: http://www.dianeticsscientology.nl/pers.asp - added by Barbara Schwarz from IP 172.184.65.167 at 00:42, 29 December 2005

It appears that those links haven't been updated yet. If you click on the name Marty Rathbun, the links that they point to as reference have been removed. You don't honestly claim that you think that Marty Rathbun is still the Inspector General of RTC? Still? Is their some reason why we shouldn't believe the RTC's own web pages? Vivaldi 14:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Rumours of death

What about these rumours on ARS about his death? [1] Anything to take seriously or worth mentioning in the article? (Entheta 21:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

They are nothing to put in an encyclopedia article. Vivaldi 17:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing a website means nothing but that a website is removed, Vivaldi. It doesn't mean that the person is dead or not more a Scientologist or whatever. -- Barbara Schwarz actually added by 216.190.11.85 (talk · contribs · count)

Why is Warren McShane a dead link?

There was a wikipedia article on him a couple of weeks ago, and it seems to be gone now. Is there a clambot with access to Wikipedia's servers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)

I think you're thinking of Gerry Armstrong. Without going into details, there was an article on Gerry but it wasn't the content that got it deleted, but legal issues involving the primary-if-not-sole contributor. So far as I know, Warren McShane has never had an article, though one would be a good idea. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there was ever an article about Warren McShane on Wikipedia. Google never found it, although it does show that he is mentioned in the Xenu article. Vivaldi 06:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun affidavit

It was easy to find a better source than the newsgroup link, here it is: DECLARATION OF MARK C. RATHBUN, with the scanned signature. But since it's not determined whether or not it is relevant to the article, I will not add it to the article. Raymond Hill 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

... Great minds think alike. =D -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What was the context of the affidavit? Was it submitted to the courts in the Gerry Armstrong v. Scientology court case? If so then the court document would be an acceptable source. I haven't read the whole thing so I am not sure what information that the document provides that is relevant to an encyclopedia article about Rathbun, but if there is any relevant information, then this affidavit should be acceptable. Vivaldi (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that it was submitted in the appeal to that case -- the affidavit makes reference to "the trial court" and "Judge Breckenridge" accepting Armstrong's representations. There's some information there which could be relevant to other articles, mostly detailing what a good game Hubbard talked about being honest and ethical and truthful (and I like the bit where Rathbun actually tries to claim that "fair game" is a "direct reference" to being at the mercy of the "barbaric" "lay justice proceedings" of the non-Scientological parts of the world.) For Mark Rathbun, it only supports that he was at that time (8-13-1991) President of the Religious Technology Center and Inspector General for Ethics (or at least that at that time, Scientology was letting him claim those positions in court documents!) Since we don't have any references supporting that now, I suppose the affidavit would be preferable to nothing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There is still a web archive of the RTC pages showing that Marty was still listed as the IG of RTC as late as 1 year ago. This archive can be removed at any time, so its still good to have the court documents. Vivaldi (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Rathbun's affidavit

MartinaVelvet (talk · contribs) added[2] an external link to a Google Groups (Usenet) posting which claims to be an affidavit by Rathbun. Davidstrauss mentioned that the link verged on reliability problems. However, a closer look shows that the poster is or claims to be Barbara Schwarz -- which means it does not "verge" on reliability problems, it leaps straight in with both boots.

However, I tried Googling sections from the text, to see if it had ever been reproduced by a site we could regard as more reliable. The irony? The only one hosting it is Gerry Armstrong, the very person that Rathbun is accusing in the affidavit of making "outrageous accusations" and "twisting and perverting the facts".

Even assuming we managed to overcome the inconsistency of saying "we should trust the reliability of Gerry Armstrong in order to link to a statement that impugns the reliability of Gerry Armstrong", there's also the issue which, IMHO, makes it pretty moot: it doesn't have much to do with Marty Rathbun, except being his words. He must've said a lot of things during his time with the CoS; I don't really see how this is more illuminating on the subject of Rathbun himself than others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How come Wikipedia policies on no attacks are not followed by the contributor? Doesn't that mean that Wikipedia is a bad joke? --Barbara Schwarz actually added by 216.190.11.85 (talk · contribs · count)

Mark Rathbun did write that affidavit but don't link to Gerry Armstrong. Why don't you order the original from the court? Will not break the bank. -- Barbara Schwarz actually added by 216.190.11.85 (talk · contribs · count)

Don't trust Gerry Armstrong. Do what any good researcher does. Go to the court and get an authorized copy. That was also obmitted in the wrongful Wikipedia article on me. -- Barbara Schwarz actually added by 216.190.11.85 (talk · contribs · count)

Part of the problem is that while Marty indeed probably said many words over the last 25 years -- any that did exist on Church of Scientology servers have been systematically erased from the internet since Marty's mysterious disappearance. There may come a time when this affidavit is one of the few reliable sources that even mentions his name at all. Vivaldi (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This document is part of court case Case No. B038975 (verifiable). I read somewhat the content, and mostly Mark C. Rathbun disputes Gerry Amstrong's negative views about Hubbard writings (fair game, etc.) For the current article, there are these claims about himself (can this be used as cites?):
«I am the President of the Religious Technology Center»,
«I also hold the ecclesiastical position of Inspector General for Ethics»
«My life is dedicated to the support and preservation of the Scientology religion and its scripture,».
Also, examples of interesting statements to maybe be used elsewhere in the Scientology series (significant since from a then top-ranking official):
«Compared to Scientology ethics and justice procedures, lay justice proceedings are, in fact, barbaric.»,
«the Scientology scriptures themselves are comprised of over 50 million words» (this contradicts other sources, even CoS ones I think),
«Scientologists, as a group, are the most ethical people in the world today. In fact, the ethical standards which they maintain are far and above those of any other group.», etc. -- Raymond Hill 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You read *somewhat* the content. How superficial is that? Anyway, I let you in a little secret, Raymondo. I think that Gerry Armstrong doesn't understand the affidavit. That is why he webbed it. He also thinks that when he webs it, that people think it is not true what Marty wrote, otherwise he would not web it. Otherwise, Scientology policies and procedues are not barbaric, you mix hat up with something else. Marty is right, Scientologists are the most ethical people on earth, but listed carefully, that does not include non-sccientological infiltrators who claim that they are Scientologists too.

Finally: that article on Marty should be deleted as the smear article on me. Anti-religious extremists wrote them to smear Marty and me. I heard once that Jumbo Wales said that Wikipedia contributors should not write any articles about people who are alive. How come he and others don't implemented that? -- Barbara Schwarz actually added by 216.190.11.85 (talk · contribs · count)

Barbara's theories

I really don't think that half the article should be taken up by this. Henry Kissinger, William F. Buckley, Jr., and many other people are also the objects of conspiracy theories; but half of their articles are not taken up detailing them. I will not do any more editing on this article. Do what you like. But IMO you would score more points against the CoS, if that is your object, by just giving the facts about Mr. Rathbun without sending the reader off in another direction altogether. Wishing you the best. The real Steve Dufour 16:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW Is Barbara accusing Mark of bigamy? If so this would clearly be a violation of WP policy. Steve Dufour 16:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Mr. Rathbun and perhaps the C of S has the copyright for that photo. Wikipedia and nobody else has it. Wikipedia violates the copyright by webbing that photograph of Mr. Mark Rathbun. Otherwise, the article seems rather confused and one-sided to me.

Barbara, is this you? --Tilman 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and put a tag on it so it will be looked at. I don't know if it meets the standards for fair use or not. Steve Dufour 07:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use can only be claimed for a small portion of a text not for a photo, and on top,the article is harmful to Mr. Rathbun's reputation and should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EquatorialDiameter (talk • contribs) 08:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Policy against "claim"

Here is where it can be found: Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Steve Dufour 04:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reported at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

This article has been reported at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mark Rathbun by Steve Dufour, who claims that "[Schwarz] seems to be saying that [Rathbun] is a bigamist." I have already responded, noting that Dufour is falsely presenting his own conclusions, drawn by combining what he believes about Rathbun's marital status with what Schwarz believes about Rathbun's marital status, as what "she seems to be saying". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know him personally. However the article says he was married to a woman named Anne. If what Barbara says is true and he was married to her as well that would make him a bigamist. Steve Dufour 06:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I quote from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mark Rathbun: "Only if one holds both beliefs would bigamy be implied, and Mr. Dufour has not presented any evidence whatsoever to indicate there is anyone out there holding both beliefs." Are you now prepared to offer evidence on this point, Mr. Dufour? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If his marriage to Anne is a fact, as the article says, and he is also married to Barbara then he would be a bigamist. Steve Dufour 16:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And if you inserted that combination of what you believe with what Barbara believes in the article and falsely claimed that it is what Barbara believes you would be committing original research. I don't see why you think it is acceptable to make a false report based on the same original research just because it is in the Wikipedia namespace rather than article namespace; what gives you the impression that it is? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Barbara says that her Marty was never married to anyone else. The two stories are mutually exclusive. AndroidCat 04:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the "two stories" should be given equal space in the article? Steve Dufour 06:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do I think you made a knowingly false report? Yes I do. You ask "What is wrong with having the article mentioned on the notice board? Do you not want people to notice it?" and this is about as honest as any fly-by-night Viagra spammer asking "What is wrong with having people know that my product is for sale? Do you not want people to know where they can purchase medicine?" and dodging the fact that his means of bringing this to people's attention is prohibited and unethical. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the article so that it was clear that bigamy was not implied. I hope this is a fair representation of Barbara's views. Steve Dufour 20:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly a more fair representation than the claim she was making accusations of bigamy, so I'm not going to fight it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

But I will, see [3] Barbara has a different theory. But she has never said that "she, not Anne". --Tilman 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Tilman. In that case I think someone should rewrite the sentence (if you don't want to take Barbara's theories out altogether that is) so that it reflects her view that there are really two "Mark Rathbuns", one married to Anne Rathbun and one married to Barbara. Steve Dufour 16:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no one else is volunteering I will make a small change. Steve Dufour 14:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sentence removed

The Director of Media Relations for the Church of Scientology said about Ms. Schwarz, "We're clueless about this person and obviously she is delusional about Mr. Rathbun and she needs help. We're sorry for her."

This is not about Mr Rathbun at all. It is about Ms Schwarz and can be found in her article. I don't see any reason to include it here. Steve Dufour 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But its Rathbun that Schwarz is searching for. So keep the sentence. --Tilman 17:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If the purpose of this article is to attack another person then I think the whole article should be deleted. Steve Dufour 20:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And so are the articles about Ted Bundy and George W. Bush. You've brought this "argument" before already. --Tilman 22:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If a sentence attacking and insulting Barbara were to be added to one of those articles I would remove it. I am only asking for one sentence to be removed from this article. A sentence which has nothing to do with the subject of the article. I don't want to ask WP to delete the whole article. Steve Dufour 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. AndroidCat 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A nomination for deletion might attract attention to Rathbun as a missing person. So it might be a good thing. Steve Dufour 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You've made this argument elsewhere already.

The sentence is on-topic, it does not attack Barbara or Marty, and even you let it stay for months. Until the 22nd, when you suddenly realized you "must" delete it. --Tilman 07:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to see the article on Mark deleted, just the sentence which insults Barbara. If someone is interested in that they can click over to her article and read it there. Steve Dufour 13:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it again - I think I'll stay neutral about this and won't revert the deletion myself next time. --Tilman 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I went too far in threatening to delete the whole article. I do think the whole thing about Barbara distracts from the real story however. Steve Dufour 17:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW It seems that no one else here cares to express an opinion. Or it might be that they think we two wogs are too low on the vibrational scale to understand their elevated discourse. Wishing you well as always. the real Steve Dufour 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think these are the only two options worth presenting as possibilities, Steve? I can think of several that are more plausible and less offensive than your hypothesis that some ill-defined "they" thinks you are "low on the vibrational [sic] scale". -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Did I spell "vibrational" wrong? Steve Dufour 06:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your spelling is not what makes your sentence unclear. I presume you are not violating WP:CIVIL by arbitrarily accusing of racism all your fellow editors who failed to snap to in rendering an opinion -- so presumably when you refer to "we two wogs" you are referring to the Scientology use of the term (the most relevant in this context, of course). However, the scale that Scientologists use to evaluate who is "too low" to respond appropriately to elevated discourse is the "tone scale"; I have never heard it being referred to as "the vibrational scale". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought tone and vibration meant the same thing. It really should be called the tonal scale. Anyway I was joking with Tilman, who is not a Scientologist. Steve Dufour 07:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW I checked out the article on tone scale and found out that sympathy is considered very low on it. Steve Dufour 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When the Scientology official said she was sorry for Barbara was she low in the tone scale? Steve Dufour 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how that question is relevant to the writing of this article. That is, after all, the purpose of this talk page. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing specifically. However, I do think that having sympathy for others makes a person a better, and more effective, writer. Steve Dufour 20:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you're talking about a Scientology official whose writing is not in any way relevant to this article, you are basically responding to a request to stay on the subject by immediately going even more drastically off-topic. I do not think such behavior is CIVIL. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You asked about the writing of this article. In my opinion the writing of this article would be improved if more sympathy was shown toward Mark, Anne, Barbara, and even the unnamed Scientology spokesperson. Steve Dufour 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting opinion, but so abstract as to have almost no relevance to the writing of the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the sentence should be included. It strikes me as quite relevant to Rathbun and Schwarz - removing is a little akin to discussing Big Tobacco and not mentioning any of their defenses or the party line - official statements are very much worth quoting, both for completeness, referencing, and NPOV. --Gwern (contribs) 22:07 23 January 2007 (GMT)

The sentence can be found on Barbara's article. In my opinion Mark's would make a much more powerful anti-Scientology statement if you took off everything about Barbara and left people wondering what happened to Mark. As it is you send them off in another direction. Steve Dufour 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop hurting Mark Rathbun or Barbara Schwarz or others

She never wrote that Mr. Rathbun is a bigamist. The problem is that people pick data from her life story and twist it to cause her and Mr. Rathbun harm. These articles on all living persons should be deleted as these kind of reportings on Mark Rathbun, Barbara Schwarz, or others, destroy lives. Both have right to privacy. The former Scientology speaker, Linda Simmons Hight should be found (she disappeared into thin air) and asked if she still stands to her defamatory statement about Ms. Schwarz. I doubt that she does. Wikipedia editors are living in the delusion that they have a right to exploit and destroy private lives with rumors and lies and come away with it. There a thousand rumors about these two individuals but also others, and it comes down to that Wikipedia editors really do not know these people. My advice to Wikipedia contributors/editors/admins: go for quality and not quantity, and stop hurting people and harassing people on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no right to publish the photograph of Mr. Rathbun either. I learned it is a copyright violation. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchdog2007 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Barbara. --Tilman 07:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

By the real standards of WP notability Barbara's, Tilman's, and Mark's articles should all be deleted. Steve Dufour 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. Even by your standards that's hardly plausible. Delete the article for the man who used to be one of the three most powerful executives in Scientology? It's not like he actually stopped being notable the minute Scientology decided to make him a non-person. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Merely having a job in an organization is not notable enough for a WP article, by WP's expressed standards. However I don't want to see this article removed because having it here might help him be found. Steve Dufour 19:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make a small change to avoid hurting Barbara's feelings. If you like I could nominate the article for deletion. This would have two advantages. It would give Mark's story and picture more exposure and it would open up the chance for a new article to be written which would tell the story of Mark and leave out Barbara. Please let me know how you feel. Thanks. Steve Dufour 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve, this isn't about doing a favour to Barbara (nor is it to hurt her). She doesn't like the article anyway. If you want to do something nice to Barbara, send her a cake or whatever she likes, as a gift in the mail. What you're doing currently is more about doing yourself a favour, because you somehow feel guilty towards Barbara for being a "wikipiggi" (as she calls it) editor.

Barbara hasn't made a statement about Anne Rathbun, at least not in her lawsuits. So it shouldn't be mentioned. --Tilman 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You must think that Barbara Schwarz is really cheap by suggesting that a cake or a gift would make up the harm that people like you do by exposing their lives so wrongfully, Tilman. You people try to deliberately destroy her and Mr. Rathbun's life because you just happened to hate their religion. This is very insane. From what I have read, Barbara is of the strong opinion that there are two Marty Rathbun's in Scientology and that you mixed both of them up in this article. You also failed to demonstrate who really owns the copyright of this photo. Wikipedia does not. The copyright is likely owned by the Church of Scientology or Mr. Rathbun himself, and without the clear permission, Wikipedia indeed is violating this copyright. I constantly come to the conclusion that many Wikipedia contributors as you, Tilman, are not even aware of the legal consequences of their actions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikisicki (talk • contribs) 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Per WP:BLP, non reliable sources and EL's removed

Please refer to WP:BLP. BabyDweezil 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tilman's comment in the edit summary did not read like a personal attack, rather a polite informative suggestion. Smee 22:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Tilman's reinserting material that violates WP:BLP, and using insulting language as an explanation. BabyDweezil

Again - please inform yourself about the sources that you claim are not reputable. Andreas Heldal-Lund is a well-known scientology expert, and so is Kady O'Malley. She is also a journalist. And I see that you reinserted the "claims", despite that I politely pointed you to WP:WTA. --Tilman 22:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. they are not reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:BLP. 2. I used "claims" in its proper connotation--when you file a lawsuit etc, you make "claims" which is what Schwarz did. So stop your silly insuts about me informing myself, when you apparently can't see beyond your own WP:COI over these subjects to even read what anybody is writing. BabyDweezil 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Just because you "claim" that these aren't reliable sources does not make them so. 2) Some of the "claims" were made in court, and some outside court. Which is why the word should rather not be used before this is clarified. --Tilman 07:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BabyDweezil, again, please stop your personal attacks against other editors. Comment on the content that you are concerned about, not the contributors. Thanks. Smee 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Relevant guidelines explaining removal of non-WP:RS sources

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

Reliable sources

Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

These are all relevant to the references and EL's that were removed, and as it clearly states, they should not be put back in the article. BabyDweezil 06:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Just copying a policy in the discussion page is not an argument. --Tilman 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The material removed falls within these guidelines--poorly sourced, negative material. BabyDweezil 08:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"It is, because it is" is not an argument. I did explain why it is properly sourced. You did not dispute this. Thus this matter is settled. But since I already did three reverts, someone else will have to. --Tilman 09:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the referenced citations in question and they do appear to be both factually accurate and very highly sourced. Smee 09:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Linda Simmons Hights is an EX-Scientology speaker. What got her busted?

She is constantly cited on Wikipedia as the "official spokesperson" on the private matters of this gentleman, Mark Rathbun and also on Barbara Schwarz. Why is she no longer a Scientoligy speaker? Who says that she knew Mark Rathbun or Barbara Schwarz and was ever qualified to make a statement about them? Simmons Hight is mentioned in both article on these individuals. She got an entire paragraph in this article and nobody knows her motives. She made a hurtful statement and disappears. And nobody wonders? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EquatorialDiameter (talk • contribs) 08:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

It's irrelevant in any case, I've removed the statement from the article. -- ChrisO 12:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was irrelevant because it is possible that Hight was fired for who knows what, amongst others, for not being honest. -- Scotia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScotiaSea (talk • contribs) 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Why are people so obsessed with Marty Rathbun and Barbara Schwarz?

Their Wikipedia discussion pages are probably longer and more heated than the discussion pages about President Bush. Apparently, they are two people who want to live a private life but they can't as Wikipedia writers don't allow them to be private. Being a former executive in a church does not make you to a public person and filing FOIA requests and law suits, if you think the government did not handle them right, does not make you into a public person. None of them seeked public attention. Marty Rathbun never posted on Usenet or in another forum. He has no website. He is very private. Wikipedia should respect it. The majority of Wikipedia writer write under assumed IDs because they want privacy. Why should Mark Rathbun and Barbara Schwarz not have the same right?

Barbara Schwarz posts only on Usenet as people can't leave her alone. She also never seeked the attention of the media. The opposite, her postings indicate that she turns down media.

She was banned to provide information about her own life to her own Wikipedia article. But the discussion pages about her are full with speculations about her life. Having watched this, I dare to say that this woman is completely wrongfully portrayed on Wikipedia. The people who write on Mark Rathbun and her are fanatical enemies of their religion Scientology. If Mark Rathbun and Barb Schwarz would be no Scientologists, their articles would be deleted and they would be allowed to live in peace.

They claim that she abused Usenet. She defended herself against abuse on Usenet and elsewhere. These Scientology enemies harassed the library, she was posting from to defend herself and I believe also Mark Rathbun, L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology so long, including with forgeries of postings that she never posted, till the library one day gave in and she could not use their computers anymore to defend herself against defamation.

She is defamed as mentally ill in these discussion pages, despite none of the Wikipedia writers know her. They just believe the false reports of these fanatical enemies of Scientology against her. Her memories might be right or wrong but having wrong memories does not make a person mentally ill. This kind of defamation should be not in Wikipedia. People who make such remarks are those who have the problems and apparently do not know about libel laws.

They claim that Usenet is a big part of Barbara Schwarz's life and that is why she is so notable. The people who claim that post a lot more than she does.

Interesting is that Barbara Schwarz apparently posted in earlier times information about her legal cases and why she filed them. But nothing of her direct information is being used. The writers rather speculate what could have been and rather use their version of her life than that, which Ms. Schwarz provided.

I did my homework. She requested FOIA records from the U.S. government on different names and subjects. Wikipedia claims that she requested only records to reconstruct her life, find records to her past. This is apparently not true. They also claim that the records, which she requested did not exist. That is not true either, as Ms. Schwarz posted details and mentioned that she received pounds of records. She informed that the government conceals records and they apparently retaliated against her. Many Wikipedia and Usenet posters are critical of numerous governmental agencies but as far as Ms. Schwarz is concerned, the government is without fail? Makes no sense to me.

Interesting is that she over and over claims that the Tribune article on her is false and it should not be worshiped by Tilman and others, like a holy cow. It is just a little paper, it is no affidavit on her life. The reporter even refused to give information about the article to the First Amendment Center (!), which should indicate bad conscience by that Tribune fellow.

She also insists that she does not hold the record and that reporters (and she even knew and posted their names) hold the FOIA requester records. Barbara Schwarz suggested on Usenet - and perhaps also on Wikipedia before she got banned for stating her opinion - that somebody should ask the U.S. Department and agencies for copies of their FOIA record and count he names on these sheets. Nobody did so, as apparently, nobody wants to know the truth.

Finally, these fanatical attackers of Scientology, who write on Wikipedia and on Usenet do not believe that Barbara Schwarz ever met Marty Rathbun. I do believe that they know each other very well but this is another matter. However, if Barbara Schwarz has nothing to do in real life with Marty Rathbun, why is she mentioned in his article? To harass Mark Rathbun with her wrongful portayed in an article on him?

I think that both article, that on Marty Rathbun and that of Barbara Schwarz should be deleted. And if not, only non-Scientology haters should write it.

-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EquatorialDiameter (talk • contribs) 09:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello, Barbara. --Tilman 14:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-notablity

Merely having a job in an organization, no matter how important that job and how important some people imagine the organization, does not make a person notable on WP. Have there been any news stories about Mark or books written about him? And as for his "disappearance".... That might well turn out to be notable. However it does not seem so yet. Has it been reported in the news media? As it is the article seems to invite speculation that something is wrong, that a crime might have been committed against him. If that is true then the place to go would be the police or the FBI, or even "Unsolved Mysteries". However, it is not WP's business right now. Steve Dufour 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How come that those, who are obsessed with Mr. Rathbun's life and speculate that he is the victim of a crime go to the authorities? -- Scotia

You have a good point - the same thing occurred to me while I was tidying up the article. I'd like to see some independent corroboration of Rathbun's notability. -- ChrisO 18:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Him being a top scientology guy makes him notable. He has also acted as spokesperson. Plus, Google for him. --Tilman 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

He appeared prominently half-a-dozen or more times in coverage of Scientology issues in the New York Times; I've added cited content drawn from two. Robertissimo 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. So far the article has had no mainstream sources. Steve Dufour 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good work Robertissimo; and thanks, Steve, for flagging up the issue. -- ChrisO 20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the article is much better than it was a few weeks ago. Steve Dufour 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he is very charismatic person. The C of S has numerous top leader. People are faszinated by Mark Rathbun more than by David Miscavige or others within the C of S. It is being said that he was Tom Cruise's auditor, however, he has no website, never appeared in any forum on the net. Being a spokesperson of a church does not equal a public person. -- Scotia

Would anyone be opposed to a small change in the Current section? As it is it almost gives me the impression he was liquidated and disposed of never to be seen again;To date, neither the RTC nor any other Scientology official or organization has made any announcement about Rathbun's status.. Rather than say his status is unknown, I would prefer to see something like since his departure/expulsion/whatever from the CoS, Mr. Rathbun appears to have embraced a private life. Once he was out of the CoS, they really don't have to keep tabs on him. Anynobody 22:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's missing the point, to be honest. The most peculiar thing about this affair is not that Rathbun has apparently disappeared without trace - it's that nobody seems to know what's happened to the post, i.e. who if anybody is currently serving as Inspector General of the RTC. It's one of the most important posts in Scientology ("the final arbiter of orthodoxy" [4]), yet nobody outside the RTC leadership seems to know who's doing it. The whole situation is utterly bizarre. -- ChrisO 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that it's notable that the position appears to have vanished too, that should be mentioned on the Scientology page and probably is suitable here too. I'm just saying since this article is a biography about Mark Rathbun, we should mention that his "disappearance" should be explained in a neutral manner. Again, I think what happened to his position is notable but this article is about him not his job Scientology. Anynobody 04:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this article is about his private life. Why is the divorce mentioned in the article? Some Wikipedia editors are divorced too. Would they want their divorce in the article? I doubt it. -- Scotia.

Who is not a public figure

FROM BARBARA WARTELLE WALL: LEGAL WATCH U.S. SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO REVIEW $2.25 MILLION LIBEL VERDICT

The U.S. Supreme Court recently let stand a decision holding that a business executive is not a "public figure" for purposes of his libel claim. (Ross v. Santa Barbara News-Press, June 1, 2004.) The Supreme Court's decision leaves standing a $2.25 million verdict against the Santa Barbara News-Press.

My advice is to grant Mr. Rathbun's privacy and remove the article.

If that business executive is no "public figure", then Marty Rathbun could claim this privacy too.

-- Scotia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScotiaSea (talk • contribs) 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Barbara! --Tilman 06:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The Wikipedia standard of whether to have an article on someone is WP:BIO, not what the US Supreme Court considers to be a public figure. JoshuaZ 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, you are wrong. Wikipedia has to operate within the law. The Supreme Court's opinions are the top authority on anything. Nobody in the USA can ignore that court. They interpret the law not Wikipedia. -- Stranger