Talk:Blown for Good/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible sources

Suggestion for improvement

The lead paragraph is way too long. A lot of the information is repeated in the body of the article below (in some places word for word), so it could be pared down to the basic details: a sentence about what the book is about, one or two more about the author & his background, & one or two about the critical reaction. Basically one half to one third of its present length would be a great improvement. -- llywrch (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Trimmed a significant amount out of the lede. [2]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sea Org

Actually it is generally regarded as a paramilitary group, per secondary sources such as books, news, and academic. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Only one of your scholar examples call sea org paramilitry and only 2% of google news results mentioning sea org call it that.©Geni 19:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That does not mean it is not generally regarded as such, or that it is not an appropriate characterization. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The books are at 1.2% and most of them are talking about the days when sea org was actualy at sea. Modern sea org does not resemble any current paramilitry group or organisation. Our sea org article does not contain the term.©Geni 19:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. The current Sea Org article is not a valid comparison as it is a wiki article and is in poor quality. The modern Sea Org does resemble a paramilitary group. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
So why does only 1.2% of articles at google scholar call it that? Which existing paramilitry organisation do you think sea org resemble (and no the mafia is not a paramilitry organisation)?©Geni 19:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Dawson, Lorne L. (2006). Comprehending Cults: The Sociology of New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 38. ISBN 0195420098. Members of the paramilitary Sea Org sign billion-year contracts of absolute loyalty and service to the highest leadership of the Church of Scientology -- and that is even from a source that is seen as sympathetic to cults/new religious movements. That book was published in 2006. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If there are multiple reliable sources describing it specifically as a paramilitary group (which clearly there are), then it's legitimate to call is as such in the article. The recent academic textbook cited by Cirt would seem to be a top-quality source. It's irrelevant what Cirt thinks: it's what the sources say. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
There are for more relibable sources that don't call it that so WP:UNDUE kicks in.©Geni 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yup. However there are 630 books on google books that mention sea org and only 8 contain the word paramilitary. Per WP:UNDUE we shouldn't use the term.©Geni 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. It is a valid scholarly source. Geni, you have failed to present any sources of your own that say it is not a paramilitary group. The absence of information is not backing up your argument. Cirt (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If you're saying there's a controversy, Geni, then let's see the sources on the other side of the controversy. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Geni, so far all you have presented is your own opinion, and you are trying to attempt to prove this POV based on an absence of something, as opposed to anything said in sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
People rarely waste ink disputing extremely uncommon names. The overwelming majority of sources do not describe sea org as paramilitary and we should not do so in this article. If you want to argue what is clearly a minority position do it in the sea org article where it can be put into proper context.©Geni 20:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Even more sources when search is for "Sea Org" and "military": books, news, and academic. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of which are not actualy calling sea org a militry or are references to something completely different.©Geni 20:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with Geni. The search results show that it is uncommon for this organisation to be called "paramilitary" so WP:UNDUE is relevant, even more so when this article isn't about the organisation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No. The absence of something does not prove anything. Google search results is not a WP:RS source. Cirt (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, made a compromise [3]. Hopefully this is a satisfactory conclusion. :) Cirt (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems entirely reasonable.©Geni 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Erring on the side of caution

After giving it some thought, I've removed a video file previously embedded on this article, diff. I wanted to err on the side of caution here, and would appreciate feedback from previously uninvolved editors. I'll defer to the consensus from the community about this. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

My initial thought was that OTRS is fine so it was fine. But after learning and seeing more, the "dropout" thing at 5 seconds could be snarkey enough to be a BLP issue. And the kid at the beginning is so unencyclopedic that I have a hard time accepting it. I would have leaned towards maybe being OK with it since the media might be beneficial overall, but the community has consistently been against YouTube videos when they are not from RS. This has been the case even if the video appears to not be tampered with. I am "involved" to a certain extent since I did the GA.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono, I'm appreciative of your feedback, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

David Miscavige

This article violates WP:BLP and WP:SPS policy, particularly Blown_for_Good#David_Miscavige. We would be more careful talking about snail darters (must be peer reviewed, not WP:FRINGE, etc.) than parroting these uncritical gossipy accusations in a self-published book about a living person. ("BFG Books Inc." == "Blown For Good," a single title publisher.) "BFG Books Inc. is a small book periodical & newspaper merchant wholesaler in Burbank, California. It opened in 2009 and now has an estimated $73,000 in yearly revenue and approximately 1 employee."[4]

Headley used to love and embrace the Church of Scientology. Now he is an ex- with nothing but bad things to say about his former religion. He has the same relation to the Church as an ex-spouse in a bitter divorce case, and we don't use all those scandal rag accusations in our Wikipedia. I have carefully removed the improper text that makes unproven scandalous accusations of living persons. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As with almost all such memoirs and testimonials, the content is largely hearsay. Personally, I do know for a fact that a lot of the absurdities and eccentricities of the Sea Org lifestyle are far more pronounced there than other orgs, but of course that's not relevant here, but that aside, I don't find many of these allegations all that surprising. The main problem, as with virtually every other similar title, is that almost none of this is verifiable due to the remote location of Int and the high level of security and vetting required to even be allowed inside, let alone work there.
As far as I know, there is nothing concrete to back Headley's allegations of the infamous "musical chairs" incident, which he originated back in the early-to-mid 2000s under the pseudonymous handle "blownforgood" (BFG). Years later former Int base senior execs like Rathbun, Rinder, Scobee, Hawkins, et al confirmed (more or less) Headley's version of events, but still remains hearsay since there is no actual evidence aside from their allegations.
Same thing with the other claims like Headley becoming Cruise's co-audit twin, as well as his claim that Cruise was not active in Scientology from 1993 to 2001. There's no way to verify this stuff and the church itself isn't particularly forthcoming. The latter claim I do know is definitely false, because Cruise was very much in semi-regular contact with various church officials and public Scientologists, and his personal assistant throughout the 90s was Michael Doven, and he hung out with other Scientologists (much to Kidman's annoyance), even hiring Scientologists for various work duties or small roles in his movies. Again, this is all totally irrelevant since I have nothing to back any of this up and even though there are plenty of people out there who agree with what I know, at the same time they could just be agreeing for the hell of it out of spite against the church. And that's the point I'm relating, that the same is true for Headley, at least as far as incidents at Int Base. But, then again, it's all more convoluted than meets the eye, and it's not exactly a black and white issue. Just my two cents worth. Laval (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
'N yer ha'pence change, sir. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, the reason for the WP policies on content is exactly as you state: What we do not know, we cannot state. Whole publishing houses are making millions by publishing innuendos, scandals, and lies about famous people. We know they are not truthful because they often don't agree with each other. And even when they agree, they sometimes agree on each other's lies because they are more colorful. Similarly, we have now a cottage industry of people telling scandalous tales about the Church of Scientology -- maybe true, maybe not, and when they agree, maybe some are borrowing tales from each other. Some of the accusations are so wild, we wonder how anyone not protected by a guarded compound inside a walled city could stand against such might, wealth, and evil. And yet those same persons who tell those tales are not rich, guarded, or harmed. So, we have only our little guidelines and we try to follow them. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It gets worse, much, much worse. Have you taken a look at R2-45? I don't even want to touch that thing. It's absurd to the extent that I can't believe anyone would seriously believe that nonsense, but hey, to each their own. Things go from one extreme to another, never ends. Laval (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I hate to interrupt this little love-fest, but it's manifestly false to claim that the musical chairs incident is mere hearsay since the Church of Scientology acknowledges that the incident occurred. Lawrence Wright interviewed Tommy Davis, the Church's then interview, for his book. To quote: "Davis admits that the musical chairs episode occurred... He explained that Miscavige had been away from the Gold Base for some time, and when he returned he discovered that in his absence many jobs had been reassigned. The game was meant to demonstrate that even seemingly small changes can be disruptive to an organization, underscoring an “administrative policy of the church.” (Wright, p. 346). As for R2-45, I'm not seeing what the problem is. Perhaps you could elucidate on the article's talk page. Prioryman (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
... it's manifestly false to claim that the musical chairs incident is mere hearsay -- The discussion above does not contain that claim. Take three deep breaths. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Tommy Davis did not confirm Headley's version of events. Headley did not personally witness the incident nor was he a participant, and like the rest of the rank-and-file Int crew (Even rank-and-file RTC/CMO like Headley's wife), would not have had any reason to witness or participate in such a thing because it was strictly limited to the most senior and top level execs of the International Exec Strata. Under no circumstances did Tommy Davis confirm Headley's version of events. I've never read his book, but his forum posts -- which I've heard are reproduced in the book almost word-for-word with no editorial oversight or fact-checking -- are way too over-the-top and absurd, even by internal Scientology standards. Davis emphatically denied that Miscavige had threatened to offload the "losers" anywhere, let alone to the worst Sea Org bases like Toronto or Moscow, and he also emphatically denied that any violence occurred or that Miscavige was hell bent on subjecting them to the most humiliating and degrading punishments. There is not a single shred of evidence of any kind, not even circumstantial to back Headley's bizarre allegations. Keep in mind that when he was still posting as BFG virtually no one among the critics exes believed him. It was only after his identity was revealed and he was working on the book, by which time he was in regular contact with Rathbun and other a few of the other expelled execs. But forget all that. I did not suggest the incident was "mere" hearsay. I did state, very clearly, that Headley's version was based on hearsay as he did not witness the incident nor did he have any direct knowledge of the observed facts of what actually happpened, nor are his claims about the event even verifiable in any way. Headley's credibility is questionable precisely because he acts like he was actually there and saw everything. A lot of the exes are very critical of his claims, but don't take my word for it. Go find the original BFG posts and you'll find most not believing his claims due to how absurdly sensationalistic and exaggerated they were. There is absolutely no way Headley could be considered to be a reliable source, and when he's gotten called out on this stuff, he has not denied that his claims are all based on hearsay. Is that enough of a dose of reality for you? Laval (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blown for Good. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blown for Good. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blown_for_Good/Archive_1&oldid=781268479"