Talk:Aaron Saxton/Archive 1

Inflated

This was just a kid. Not a "senior official". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoting the Sydney Morning Herald -- "Aaron Saxton, who rose to a senior level in the Sea Org..." -- Cirt (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Still just a kid. The article avoids mentioning his age. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make up spurious claims if you are not going to back them up to independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The article avoids giving the kid's age. I do not need to give a source for that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop referring to this WP:BLP individual as "a kid". Your claims are unsourced. -- Cirt (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A BLP would give a date of birth. Your quoting all this policies is an annoying way of avoiding the issue. You seem to have all the sources. Did you really read those Turkish newspapers? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source for date of birth, cited to independent reliable secondary sources? -- Cirt (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are no sources for someone's age, probably that person is not sufficiently notable for an article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wholly incorrect. Wikipedia policy for notability is not "whether sources exist for someone's age", but rather WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Born 1975 or 1974?

Cirt says 1975, a date he just deduced via WP:SYNTH. But it is wrong, should be 1974. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make unsourced changes to articles on Wikipedia. Especially to WP:BLP pages, as you just did to this page. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not try to guess dates. Especially birthdates in fact boxes on WP:BLP pages, as you did with this subject. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you back up your change to this page to independent reliable secondary sources? -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you? You just calculated 1975. And put this spurious factoid in a factbox on a WP:BLP article. That is a serious mistake. It could have real life consequences. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

1991 - 16 = 1975. However, I have removed it, as not directly stated. Please do not make unsourced changes to WP:BLP articles on Wikipedia again. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done, [1]. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOR#Routine_calculations would be relevant. Durova⁴¹² 02:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but now we have a definitive source for the birth year. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hyperinflation

Cirt is continuing his attempts at making Saxton a former big shot. The article now says:"According to 3 News, while in the organization he was part of "Scientology's senior management"." After som clicks, the refrence goes to this text. This text does not say that Saxton was in Scientology's senior management. Cirt's references do not check out. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the cite goes to the video version by 3 News - video. Please, be more careful when throwing around accusations against other editors about sourcing. -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Video is problematic as a reference. If you want to quote video, please supply verbatim quotes and the exact time in the video. The text that is linked to this news item says: "Saxton says personal files detailing counselling sessions were accessed by staff in senior management, called the Sea Org." It does not say that Saxton accessed those files. Clearly, he was subordinate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be interpreting the source as meaning 'Aaron Saxton (who was not senior) reported that senior members of Sea Org accessed files'. According to Cults and New Religions by Douglas E. Cowan and David G. Bromley, Sea Org is "a fraternal religious order," members of the Sea Org "occupy the most essential and trusted positions in the senior churches in the Scientology hierarchy" - and according to the Sydney Morning Herald, Saxton "rose to a senior level" within the Sea Org itself [2]. -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The video says he was in "the Sea Organization, Scientology's senior management". Why not use the full quote? --JN466 02:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

For background info, the Sea Org has in excess of 6,000 members, according to Melton. --JN466 02:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Saxton says, credibly in my view, that he was a member of the Commodore's Messenger Organization. While Sea Org membership in itself does not mean someone is in "Scientology's senior management", the CMO is a senior administrative body. See e.g. [3] So the descriptions of his being at a senior management level seem to be justified after all, but not because he was in the Sea Org, as the source stated, but because he was in the CMO as well as the Sea Org. --JN466 15:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Passed as GA quality

This article was reviewed and promoted to WP:GA quality status. The review is at Talk:Aaron Saxton/GA1. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Embeded self-published video

I think there may be a BLP concern with the embedded self-published video in this article. I have requested outside input at the BLP noticeboard, please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Aaron_Saxton. --JN466 10:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

lede

Should be a summary, not a restatement of every cite from the "commentary" section. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated the April 2011 version of the lead so that it complies with MOS:LEAD. The abbreviated version created by User:Collect resulted in a maintenance tag and as the lead section is one of five MOS criteria that have to be met by GA class articles, it could have been put up for GA reassessment, and it would have failed. There's of course no problem with rewriting the lead to make it even better, but the single-sentence attempt didn't cut it. Schwede66 18:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Again - leads are supposed to be summaries. I went half-way now for the exactly repeated material, but my edit was more than four years ago. The "lead too short" tag was placed more than 2 years after my shortening of the lead. And as no one worried about a GA reassessment, and I do have a couple of GAs under my belt, I suggest your concern might be a tad too great. Collect (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What you have produced this time round represents a much better lead, although it is still on the short side. Whichever way you look at it, what you did four years ago did not conform with MOS:LEAD; two short sentences will never achieve an adequate lead for a GA. Thanks for improving this article. Schwede66 22:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)