Talk:Death of Lisa McPherson

Jeff Jacobsen

Jeff Jacobsen has released the text of http://www.lisamcpherson.org/ under the GFDL, so that can be cut'n'pasted here to continue working on - David Gerard 12:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Query

I also had a question. This page says that felony charges were brought against the church. Is this correct? I thought criminal charges could only be brought against individuals. Am I mistaken? Thanks. 24.131.12.228 23:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Corporate law. You CAN bring criminal charges against a whole corporation, but the charges usually simply net monetary sanctions, as far as I know. BUT, I could be incorrect. I've seen this case referenced as having netted criminal charges against the church as a whole (Here in Canada, we have dereliction of duty and duty of care laws which can DEFINITELY target organizations). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.193.92 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Just one query, why does it say the McPherson case has been settled but is 'still active'? Doesn't make much sense, and needs to be clarified.

Categorization

WP:CLS Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes
"An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software — except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio."

Category:Scientology

Anyone think that maybe the category "Scientologists" is a bit strange considering her story? I don't mean to insinuate that we censor Wikipedia because of people's feelings toward an issue, but being murdered by Scientologists would seem to move one spiritually away from such an organization. I'm going to change the category to Scientology for now for accuracy, but I'd like to see what others think on this issue. --TheGrza 03:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

You're claiming a dead person has renounced their religion after their death??User talk:TheGrza#Lisa McPherson Please cite a reference.--AI 01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake. After she was brutalized, she renounced scientology.--TheGrza 17:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"After she was brutalized, she renounced scientology." What are you talking about? She never renounced Scientology. She was a Scientologist that died in the dubious care of Scientology staff members that were violating clear Church policy in attempting to care for a psychotic. --Justanother 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

She did want to quit before the 17 days, and called a friend. Thus, she renounced scientology before she was brutalized according to scientology "church" policy, in the "100% standard tech" location. --Tilman 08:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I remember that some "friend" came forward later and said something about a call. Don't know if I believe that or if that was just more work on the part of LisaTrust critics that, with Minton's funding, milked this for much more than it was worth. You don't "renounce Scientology" by calling a friend and mentioning it anyway. She was working for Scientologists; she was following a scio when the accident occured that started this whole regretable incident. This incident was a fluke. Never before and never after is there any evidence that Scn tried to handle a psychotic in this way. It was a violation of CoS policy for that C/S and other staff to have attempted to handle a "type 3 PTS" (psychotic individual). LRH envisioned the day when even mental institutoins used Scn tech and wrote tech to handle them. But only on the day when the scio mental hospital exists. Look at any policy on handling Type 3. They are not supposed to set foot inside an org. Don't you think that if the same "non-brutal stabilization" were attemped in a hospital with competent medical staff instead of in a hotel room with untrained "nurses", an unethical remote doctor, and a stupid trio of C/S, MLO, and MAA; don't you think the outcome would have been different. They made a stupid mistake but it was a mistake, nothing more. A "wrongful death". --Justanother 13:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Never before and never after is there any evidence that Scn tried to handle a psychotic in this way." Wrong. There were other cases of people held against their will, and who have spoken out. But this is not the place to discuss this. This is only about the Lisa McPherson definition. --Tilman 15:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Were they Scientologists suffering from a psychotic break? That is what I was clearly refering to. --Justanother 16:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Tilman 16:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested if you care to elaborate here or on my talk page. I have never heard of any other Type 3 being addressed on regular Church lines (case supervisor involvement, etc.) with the goal of actually helping them although I have of course read claims of "chain lockers" and the like. But, if true, I doubt that "help" was the goal there. --Justanother 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Until such time as we have a Category:Former Scientologists, I have to agree that putting her in "Scientologists" is a bit inappropriate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion.

But, until that time, Category:Scientologists is appropriate.--AI 01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Scientology#Victims:

"Let's not sprinkle the article with victims of Scientology"

I suggest the same should apply to Category:Scientology.--AI 01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poor extrapolation from an article to a category. A category reflects everything in that category; an article reflects an overview of that subject. It is perfectly reasonable in the context of an article to trim back or move to its own article a list that is ballooning out of proportion, whether that be a list of a group's adherents, a list of a group's victims, a list of a group's critics, a list of fanon facts, or whatever. There is really no comparable argument to be made for removing people from a category.

In the meantime, I've followed your own lead: Like L. Ron Hubbard, Lisa McPherson has a significance to the subject of Scientology that goes beyond and in her case outweighs the significance of her being a member before her death, making it relevant to place her in Category:Scientology as well as Category:Scientologists. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to have a category and one of it's sub-categories both on one page. Lisa McPherson relates to scientology in the larger sense because she is so often used as the poster girl for criticism toward clams, while a list of scientologists would seem to be of a more minor interest for those interested in scientology at large.--TheGrza 17:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

POV...

POV what? It's a talk page, designed for POV.--TheGrza 23:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

she was a scientologist, she has a page. it's not rocket science, guys. Joeyramoney 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Let's see, she was a Scientologist. She died while in the care of the Church of Scientology due to their neglect and refusal to use proper medical care. This makes her a topic of discussion when referring to criticism of Scientology. I think it is appropriate to have her placed in the Scientologists and Former Scientologists catagories, as well as the general Scientology catagory. Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scientologists

Category:Scientologists contains lots of ex-Scientologists. And furthermore, McPherson was a Scientologist pretty much up to her death - David Gerard 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it ended badly between the two. I don't they reconciled in Xenu-Heaven, either. I don't have a problem with former scientologists being listed under the Scientologist cat (a former cat would make more sense but it's a minor quibble), it's just that this article relates more to scientology as a topic; it doesn't contribute to scientologists as much.--TheGrza 15:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

TheGrza, I disagree. IMHO, presenting Lisa in the main category serves a POV. Besides, categorization as you suggest is contrary to wikipolicy.--AI 22:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with David Gerard: Unlike an article such as L. Ron Hubbard, Lisa McPherson does not define Category:Scientology. --AI 22:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we have to look at why there is a Lisa McPherson article in the first place. There have been millions of people in the history of the world killed by some religious sect or another, both from within and without. The vast majority don't have articles because their influence as martyrs to a system or as practitioners of a religion is insignificant to the larger society. McPherson's article appears because it is often cited as the most heinous, vile, tragic, insane thing Scientology has ever done. Whether true or not, her death is a mantra for anti-clam groups, while her life never really affected society on a large scale. For this reason, her life as a scientologist is not the point of the article, but the article exists to detail her murder and the subsequent use of her death as scientology criticism. Whew. I'm having a hard time seeing why it is either inaccurate or "highly POV", or how this conversation has been resolved to the point that you're reverting edits and claiming that the talk page will bear you out in some way.--TheGrza 23:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

No. For one thing, what do you mean by "[McPherson] is often cited as the most heinous, vile, tragic, insane thing Scientology has ever done." There are too many lies and rumors out there, Scientology was not at fault for her death. If you think her death is a mantra for the Scientology critics, then you can categorize it accordingly.--AI 2 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

I think he answered "what do you mean" quite succinctly, AI. "Whether true or not, her death is a mantra for anti-clam groups, while her life never really affected society on a large scale." It might be your POV that Scientology was not at fault in the death of Lisa McPherson, but just as patent nonsense is different from "a lucid explanation of a belief someone thinks is nonsensical" and a "hoax article" is different from "an article about a hoax", we do not censor a POV held by a great number of people just because one Wikipedia editor holds the POV that their POV is "lies and rumors". -- Antaeus Feldspar 2 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Irrelevant ad hominem.--AI 2 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Incorrect, again. You really shouldn't go past your misunderstoods, AI. Ad hominem is when a person's personal characteristics or personal situation is cited to suggest that this makes their position incorrect. To point out a case where someone attempted twice to speedy-delete an article which met none of the criteria for speedy deletion, and suggest that everything those efforts indicate about that person's grasp of Wikipedia policy should be taken into account, is not ad hominem. -- Antaeus Feldspar 3 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Lisa McPherson was a Scientologist and this article belongs in Category:Scientologists. This article does not define Scientology nor is it in a category higher than Category:Scientology. See WP:CLS --AI 2 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)

I see it has now been added to Category:Scientology controversy. Since this sub-category, unlike Category:Scientologists, does reflect the major impact she and the circumstances of her death had, I can accept this in lieu of Category:Scientology. -- Antaeus Feldspar 3 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

I think that's the best category for the article. AI was ticking me off with his hysterical lack-of-reality common with Scientologists (y'know, censorship, irrelevant complaints and belief it's OK to lie to non-members - in other words, the only way a cult like this can survive), but it's a fair category. The critera works: as long as people are looking for the article they'll know where to find it.203.131.167.26 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Recomended New Category, Category:Dead Scientologists

I looked at the list of Scientologists on the wiki and I've noticed that quiet a few of them (like Lisa) are dead so instead of labeling them "Former Scientologists" since most of them never did leave the CoS (this includes Lisa since there is no evidence that she ever left the organization) we should instead create a new category called "Dead Scientologists" and place them in there instead. The Fading Light 5:06 22 March, 2006

Good idea. Go ahead and be WP:BOLD and do it! wikipediatrix 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how... The Fading Light 7:47, 22 March 2006

Scratch the above I figured it out... Category:Dead Scientologists The Fading Light 8:27, 22 March 2006

The claim that 'the hospital wanted her to be psychologically cared for. However, some Scientologists arrived and stated that McPherson did not believe in psychiatry' makes no sense. Psychology and psychiatry are not the same thing!

shhh... don't tell Scientologists that.--Pewpewlazers 06:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides, psychology and psychiatry may not be the same thing, but they are very closely related, and whoever took that down might have paraphrased.--Vercalos 09:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Scientology but "Dead Scientologists" sounds weird and vaguely loaded if not POV. It probably isn't a good category. Though I guess it was deleted so never mind.203.131.167.26 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

More info

This page seems to have some useful information, but I doubt it's a proper source of information, though it cites sources for most of them.. Can anyone find a proper source for this?

June 2006. Although in May 2004 a settlement was announced in the press, the estate HAS NOT SETTLED. Scientology's counterclaim against the Lisa McPherson Estate remains open and no settlement documents have been signed. No money has changed hands. Scientology is stalling, the family has received nothing so far, and the courts -- as ever in this case -- are of no help.

It would probably be good to get this information into the article, if we can get a reputable source on it.--Vercalos 09:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

blatant POV problems

In the first place, I'm not sure this article should even exist - do we give articles to everyone else who ever died in circumstances connected to the Catholic Church or other religions? How exactly is she notable? But even so, the intro is unacceptable. It says McPherson "was a Scientologist who died while in the care of the Church of Scientology."

That's ridiculous. The entire Church of Scientology as a whole, was NOT responsible for her care. Surely you wouldn't let an article say "such and such was molested while in the care of the Catholic Church"? If a tornado destroyed a synagogue, would you say the people inside "died while in the care of the Jews"? Even if a Methodist minister shot his entire congregation, would you say that HE shot them, or would you say they "died in the care of the Methodist Church"? Highfructosecornsyrup 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology certainly claims credit whenever someone experiences any improvement in circumstances where a Scientologist and therefore Scientology could possibly claim credit -- check out here, for instance, do you think there's any doubt that anyone would read that and not think it was saying "Scientology can bring people out of comas!" It takes careful reading to realize that it doesn't actually go out on a legally vulnerable limb and say "Scientology's 'spiritual training' brings people out of comas", it quotes a reporter in a "local newspaper" which makes that dubious claim.

As for your supposed analogies, they're quite frankly crap. "If a tornado destroyed a synagogue, would you say the people inside "died while in the care of the Jews"?" No, because no one can predict a tornado. There is nothing that the synagogue could have done to prevent the tornado, or could have been expected to do to minimize the damage. Pray tell, how is this comparable to Lisa McPherson, a woman who clearly needed medical care, and should have received medical care, and was removed from medical care, not just by Scientologists, but because of the beliefs and practices of Scientology, which held that she should be treated with Scientology instead (despite the early false claims by the Church that she had merely gone with them for "rest and relaxation"). Even when they finally did decide that she should be given real, actual medical care, the only way they are not responsible for her death is if she died within two minutes of them setting out for the hospital. Why? Because the nearest hospital was only two minutes away and instead they went to a hospital forty-five minutes away. Their insistence on bringing her to a Scientologist doctor almost certainly is what cost her her life.

If someone was hurt by a tornado because the tornado hit the synagogue they were in, no one would blame those who ran the synagogue. If, however, the rabbi said "no, no, this person who's been hurt by the tornado -- let's not bring him to actual doctors who know what they're doing; let's treat him ourselves with unscientific Jewish remedies" and later "well, I guess we have to bring him to an actual doctor because he's in really bad shape but let's drive an extra forty-five minutes so we can bring him to a Jewish doctor" -- it is ludicrous to think that no one would notice or note that connection. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in there did you really explain why you think Wikipedia should take the position that she "died while in the care of the Church of Scientology." She died in the care of a few Scientologist employees at the Fort Harrison Hotel. It's not the same thing, no matter how much you want the Church as a whole to be blamed. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. "a few Scientologist employees at the Fort Harrison Hotel"? Do you think anyone buys that? You might as well claim that Operation Snow White wasn't an action of the Church of Scientology, just "a few Scientologist employees". -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you respond to my sincere concerns for fairness with dismissive and uninformative cracks like "Oh come on, do you think anyone buys that?" I don't understand your attitude. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

She died while in the care of the CoS. She had a C/S (case supervisor) watching over the process. There are records related to her stay and the efforts made to get her to eat/drink. This incident was a total fluke and should never have happened (LRH specifically said that the CoS is not set up to handle psychotics). It was a violation of policy and a complete screw-up. But it was the CoS' screw-up and they have settled with the family to the satisfaction of the family. Everything else is the critics having a field day with this poor girl's tragic demise. Notable, in and of itself, no. Wrongful death happens all the time to organizations. This was a fluke. The notability is a self-fulfilling kind of notability. She is notable because critics have worked very hard to make her notable and used her as a lightning rod. But that is likely notable enough and I doubt this article will go away any time soon. However, it can be corrected if there are problems with NPOV. --Justanother 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the CoS was legally liable, but was the Church as a whole really responsible for her death? I seriously doubt that most Church higher-ups, let alone casual members of the Church, had ever heard of her until this happened, and I still don't think it's fair to blame the Church as a whole for what goes on in any of its locations, not even Clearwater. And why is Lisa McPherson's name listed alongside DM's as important people in the Church on the template, when that's just ludicrous? As you say, wrongful death happens all the time to organizations. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am sure that a number of FSO staff were aware of the situation and I would find it hard to believe that the Captain FSO did not know that they were caring for a psychotic. I doubt it would have gone further uplines than that while she was alive but who knows. My guess is it should never have happened in the first place but once they had her no-one could bring themselves to give her back to the psychs. I can forgive them for that and I imagine Lisa would too. --Justanother 03:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the whole point of the controversy surrounding her death is the involvement of the church. That being said, would it help if the sentence was changed to "...while in the care of the _____ branch of the Church of Scientology"? (emphasis added). That specificity would address your apparent concern that the sentence is overbroad, branding the entire church, while still retaining the meaning. As for the notability issue, we don't make judgments about whether something is notable; the world does. Our notability standard can be stated as: if the wider world has addressed a subject by addressing it as the primary subject of non-trivial written material in reliable sources, then it is notable.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Left. Thanks for the advice. Yes, that helps. I am not really arguing the notability - it has been made notable; that is not wikipedia's doing. It is really a pretty simple case. Some Scientologists took her out of the hands of the psychs. The FSO (Flag Service Organization) tried to nurse her through the psychotic incident (against their own policies). They failed miserably. No criminal charges were pursued. The Church paid civil damages. If that story were presented in an NPOV fashion there you would have it. --Justanother 03:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to make this more neutral by fleshing it out and removing some OR and OR synthesis. The last bit I would dispute is whether she was ever really put on the introspection rundown. Do we have an RS that claims that she was?? What I get from looking at the source reports from the FSO is that they were simply trying to keep her fed and hydrated and "unrestimulated" in the hope that she would come out of it. They did a piss-poor job but I don't see any introspection rundown there. --Justanother 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tilman, for the citations. I just looked at the introspection rd one and it looks fine. Guess she never made it past the "isolation step" (if such exists, I am really not very familiar with what is on the rundown, just a bit from critic sites). --Justanother 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all just a google search away. --Tilman 17:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Highfructosecornsyrup, I have done some work on the article to bring it into good agreement with the facts of the case esp. as regards the criminal case. That is what I noticed as needing some work. What else do you see that you feel needs to be addressed in order to pull the POV tag? The very existence of the article not included (smile). --Justanother 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How about:

1. "Since her death there have been regular pickets outside Scientology offices on or around the anniversary of her death." Is this really relevant? Does it need to be in the intro paragraph?
2. Even though I don't dispute that it's factual, it would still be proper, I think, to have a specific source attached to the statement that she removed all her clothing on the street.
3. "some Scientologists arrived". "left with the Scientologists". Who are "the Scientologists"? Do they not have names? Referring to them by their religion rather than their names makes sense only if one wants to connect that religion to the circumstances as much as possible. It would be better to say that they were from Flag, rather than just blanket-referring to them as "the Scientologists".
4. "..."rest and relaxation" according to the Church of Scientology, but Church logs [1] from McPherson's stay there..." The reference link for this shows that the logs are FSO logs, not "Church logs". This pattern of treating whatever happens in any branch office of the Church as being representative of the Church itself is just plain wrong.
5. Neither this article nor the Jesse Prince article bothers to mention that a Judge found Prince to be a not-credible witness.

--Highfructosecornsyrup 15:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't work on it now though you may care to. The Jesse Prince bit is basically off-topic POV-pushing OR (OR juxtaposition) made even more unnecessary as the OSA guy admitted destroying docs. Better to just remove the Prince bit than get into showing him to be biased. The pickets are relevant to the article, though perhaps not in the intro but maybe. Missing sources can be added; you should simply be able to use the existing sptimes sources as they contain almost all relevant info. Once FSO is clearly identified as a branch of CoS it is appropriate to reference FSO rather than CoS. The folks that took her out are probably best described as "fellow Scientologists" but it really depends on what the RS says. --Justanother 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Profit

I don't know if this has been gone over (far as I saw, it hasn't), but I don't plan to add it without a lot of positive input. The 2002 film "The Profit", which has a page here, and has the Scientology template on it, is not on the Scientology template. While this happens often enough, since the CoS' charge against the movie resulting in its banning from distribution was that it was made for the sole purpose of influencing the jury pool in Lisa MacPhearson's death... well, mightn't a link on this page be wise to show the reference?

If no, it's obviously fine, but it occurred to me that it seems important that this claim was made by the CoS in the case of MacPhearson. Cheers. Raeft 13:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonuser Edits

I question the neutrality of this article because there have been many edits by 70.127.190.127, some of which were without explanation and have sense been reverted. The IP address 70.127.190.127 traces back to the Tampa Bay area, and I am unsure as to whether there are pro-Scientology persons slanting the article in their favor. Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi I’m responsible for those edits, I'm new and unfamiliar with the protocols but all my edits are accurate with proper references and unbiased. I posted the raw facts of the case. The facts are that the case was dismissed after the coroner changed the cause of death. The newer and final coroner’s report takes precedence over the old one. I also posted all evidence leading to the review of the coroner's report. All those are neutral fact that should be included in the article. To not to include this information would be bias. Bravehartbear 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Steve, it took me some time to review the edits of ca. 30 days, since no stone was left unturned, many segments were moved around, which made it difficult to find out what was deleted. Like in Bennetta Slaughter by the same two editors, a lot of well-sourced information was lost. Which I've now put back in when it was relevant to the topic, sometimes edited. I hope I caught all these deletions, which were certainly accidental, per WP:AGF. --Tilman 16:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that many editors have reviewed this page I'm going to take the liberty to remove the neutrality check. Bravehartbear 04:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

In order to solve conflicting data the following order of precedence should be followed:

• Court rulings take precedence over independent opinions.
• Government reports take precedence over independent reports.
• The latest report takes precedence over older reports.
• Unbiased sources (like newspapers) take precedence over biased sources (like special interest groups). Try to always use an unbiased source.

Bravehartbear 22:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

born Lisa Skonetski

I'm pretty sure that she was not born Lisa Skonetski. She married a guy named Gene Skonetski. She must have had another name. I am currently searching for her life history papers, which I read years ago (pretty disturbing, btw, that scientology asks all these details). --Tilman 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that Lisa McPherson is her birth name. Her mother is Fannie Bell McPherson. [1]. She was also married to Don Boss and was named Lisa Boss [2][3] --Tilman 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

using an article to "build a case"

Everyone on both sides of the issue should look at other articles about contentious deaths and see how they were handled. Nicole Brown Simpson comes to mind. Even though you know and I know and the whole planet knows that O.J. is likely to be guilty, note how that article is not gleefully and obsessively filled with conspiratorial evidence (sourced or not) transparently building a case against him within the article itself. By comparison, the Lisa McPherson article reads like a "true crime" novel and 80 percent of the article is actually not even about her, but about legal wranglings her family had with Scientology after her death (you'd think it was the trial of the century from all the attention it gets in the article - almost as much space is devoted to it as the Scopes Trial or Bush v. Gore). wikipediatrix 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The case of Lisa McPherson has nothing in common with Nicole Brown Simpson, except that both were women. Apples and Oranges. --Tilman 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said they had to have anything in common with each other, aside from having had contentious deaths. wikipediatrix 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath

I suggest to create an aftermath section. This would have the segment on the Lisa McPherson clause and the suspension of David Minkoff that is already there. What could also be added is

• The end of the career of Joan Wood
• Changes (if any) in the handling of scientologists who get psychotic breaks. I believe that scientology made some sort of deal.

--Tilman 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

A most interesting proposal. There is plenty of reputable citations and sourced material that exists out there on this topic... Smee 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Oh yes, yes, let's pack the article with even more off-topic trivia, on the pretense that having "reputable citations and sourced material" makes it all okay to do so. wikipediatrix 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is inappropriate and unnecessary. The proposal is sound and the material would be directly relevant to the topic at hand. Smee 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually, my response was being lighthearted, jovial and playful. (It's when I'm all grim and serious-like that I'm showing utter contempt.) But thanks for your opinion of my demeanour. Meanwhile, I'm not interesting in talking about anyone's demeanour, I'm interested in talking about their edits. Which I did. And will continue to do. wikipediatrix 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not surprised by your reaction, I like to point you to the fact that the SPT Articles about Wood's mental problems always mentioned the McPherson case, so it isn't just me who considers this part of the topic. I think that even the scientologists might be interested in the addition: in their eyes, it could show that Wood was unqualified to begin with. And in the eyes of scientology critics, it could show that the scientology case has destroyed her, e.g. due to the pressure that scientology applied. --Tilman 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like you're trying to write a definitive book about "the McPherson case" and shoehorn it into the article. This article is supposed to be primarily about a person and not a "case". wikipediatrix 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the person and the case. The case is what made her notable. Without her terrible death, she would just be one of many scientologists. Of course, feel free to add stuff about Lisa as a person, for example her marriages. --Tilman 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the article since April 9, 2007 bias the article and are inaccurate

I think the article has become biased since April 9, 2007 (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_McPherson&oldid=125005400 ), when User:70.127.190.127 aka User:Bravehartbear began to edit the article. The current revision I am referring to is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_McPherson&oldid=129437504

After that time, it becomes more slanted, not neutral and very misleading. Statements are put in the article, cited, and yet the references do not support these statements at all. Eg., this section was added:

"This scientific evidence was then sent to Joan Wood for review. [24] After the review Wood changed the cause of death from "undetermined" to an "accident". Wood traced McPherson's pulmonary embolism to her psychosis and a minor auto accident as major factors. [1] The Scientific evidence sent to Woods included: Literature that shows that dehydration does not cause blood clots.[24]

Research on a substance known as ketone, which people produce when they are dehydrated, starving or even fasting, tests of McPherson's bodily fluids showed no ketone.[24]

Findings from a body measurement expert hired by the church. The expert compared autopsy photos of McPherson with those taken in happier times, just before she became psychotic and entered the Fort Harrison. The expert concluded there was "no appreciable weight loss," which counters the prosecution's view that McPherson lost 20 to 40 pounds while in Scientology's care.[24]

A report by a Morton Plant Hospital doctor who saw McPherson just before she entered Scientology's Fort Harrison Hotel, McPherson already was thin with protruding cheek bones.[23]

A report by Robert D. Davis, the pathologist who conducted the autopsy for Wood's office, concluded McPherson's body was of average nutritional status.[23] Medical literature and sworn testimony that it says proves the eye fluid samples were improperly handled by Wood's office, incompetently tested at an independent lab and ultimately contaminated.[23]

Also was notable that Wood did not do McPherson's autopsy personally but assigned it to Robert Davis, an employee who later was asked to resign and has become a witness for the church. He disputed Wood's conclusions and testified that she did not speak to him about her findings before signing his autopsy after he had resigned.[5]

Many "facts" like saying that eye fluid samples were incompetent, seeming "reports" that say her weight was normal, etc. point to [23], which is an article at http://www.sptimes.com/News/030700/TampaBay/Doctors_paid_by_churc.shtml "Doctors paid by church give defense".

However, there are NONE of these statements listed in the cited article. Is it original research, then?

Therefore I believe the edits since April 9, 2007 by User:70.127.190.127 aka User:Bravehartbear (apparently the same person) are misleading, should be looked at closely, hence I will add the disputed neutrality tag back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.245.173.200 (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Hmm. I'll have a look at that later. However I've heard much of these facts / allegations before. Maybe its a question of proper sourcing. --Tilman 04:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it right now gove me a minute it looks like I got a couple of references mixed up. Bravehartbear 05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Have all the time you need. Just don't revert again. I'm not a "delete first" type of guy, but 99.245.173.200 really does have a good argument here. From what I remember, you do khow how to insert sources. If not, just put <ref>[URL title-of-URL]</ref> --Tilman 05:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Working on it. It didn't know the links were to the wrong place.Bravehartbear 05:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for making this mistake, but as you can see the it was just a simple mistake of mixing up the citations, the correct citations are there now. So you can remove that tag. Bravehartbear 06:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, the pointer to the citations looks fixed Bravehartbear. I'm in the process of a bit of a revision of this article too. I might include a short "aftermath" section (discussed above) since it's a result of this case.

"the reopening of the matter is slated for March 27th, 2007"

Since spin off legal cases against Dr. David I. Minkoff followed, this delay is still outstanding as of March 6th, 2007. An upcoming hearing into the reopening of the matter is slated for March 27th, 2007.

It's well past March, what is the outcome of this? It seems dated if left as is, to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.245.173.200 (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I've never heard that Minkoff has anything to do with the block. The reason is a dispute with Minton.

To simplyfy this issue, I'll shorten it to say that the film is blocked. Anything else can be explained in the article of the Profit. --Tilman 04:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just add the link about Dr. David I. Minkoff settled his portion of death suit in 1998. Bravehartbear 05:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)