Talk:Michael Doven/Archive 1

Career sect

Creating a sect called "Scientology connections" is inappropriate - particularly when it removed info that was directly relevant to his career from the sect called Career. Please, do not do this again. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It was an attempt to include ALL of the information but segregate it by his work and his Scientology connections. If I inadvertently removed any relevant material (you don't identify what), it could have easily been added back in.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of the current chronological structure? -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the subsections per se. I just don't think all of it belongs in a Career section unless you believe that being a scientologist is a career. That might be true for some leaders of the group, but not for adherents. Now, if you think that Doven is high enough within the group to consider THAT a career for him (a dicey proposition in my estimation), then I would still separate his film career from his scientology career.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, it was indeed his career, for some time. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ultra short paragraphs

Please, do not break up paragraphs into ultra short paragraphs consisting only of one or two sentences. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

One long run-on paragraph with different subjects is worse than short sentences - in my view. I don't know about others, but I have trouble reading it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, at least one other editor agrees with me. And note that the latest changes to the lead track the way I organized the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed the lede a tad bit. There are now no ultra short paragraphs and one-sentence-long paragraphs. -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sub sects

Made subsects, inside career sect, breaking it up into chronological order as opposed to a POV decision on the person. -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This article is weird to read. Why is Doven notable? Because of his high profile media gigs, or because of his faith? The article seem much more interested in his faith than in his work, but this runs the risk of conflicting with the undue weight policy. I think the article needs to make up its mind about how important his scientology membership is and if it is important (i.e. notable)(apparently there are quite a few sources about it) then it shouldn't be afraid to make that into a separate section instead of trying to fudge it into the other content. Think about how weird it would be if he were a Jew and his Job was described as "HE was personal assistant to Jewish actor Woody Allen" "He took photos at the Jewish wedding of X and Y". If his scientologism is notable it deserves a section of its own - if not it should be lost.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

His career started out as a photographer and personal assistant. He is notable for being a film producer. -- Cirt (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The photographer and personal assistant history is directly relevant and part and parcel to his later progression to becoming a film producer. It is most definitely part of his career history. If someone worked for the organization of the Vatican, and then later started a different career, that would still be part of the history of their career. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please also differentiate, and note that the individual's career has included work involving the organization. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be made clearer that the reason for the inclusion of the scientology material is to map his professional trajectory, not to adduce circumstantial evidence to his being a scientologist or to envoke a "guilt-by association" type argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Agreed. Most certainly. No objections to that idea. Suggestions on how to implement it with changes to the article? While also noting the personal assistant in the film-industry role led to his later related career as a film producer? -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Maunus (talk · contribs), for the responsive and collaborative comments and attitude. It is most appreciated. :) The lede is looking a bit better [1]. Hopefully the article is being improved to a satisfactory level. -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is better now, now it is at least clear why the scientology connection is notable. Thanks for collaborating Cirt.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, Maunus (talk · contribs), and thank you - for such a positive and collaborative demeanor during this article improvement experience. It is most appreciated, very much so. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientology terminology

The Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology defines "communicator" as "the person who keeps an executive's communication lines (body, dispatch, intercom and phone) moving or controlled. The communicator helps an executive free his or her time for essential income-earning actions, rest or recreation and prolongs the term of appointment of the executive by safeguarding against overload."

The above quote doesn't strike me as being appropriate to this biography. Shouldn't it be in some other Scientology jargon related article that we can simply link to from communicator here? --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

yes.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Some suggestions on where to put it (keep them clean) would help. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see why it would be encyclopedic at all. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

[2]. Okay. No objections to this removal of material. Thank you. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Update

Update: Please see action by Maunus (talk · contribs) in edit to article, see edit summary: "remove neutrality tag - Cirt has argued well for the merit of included material" -- thank you very much for this. This comment and action is most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

American scientologists category

The category was removed with a pointer to WP:EGRS and the assertion that it requires self-identification. I disagree with that interpretation of the policy. The policy says that "Inclusion must be justifiable by external references." It says "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity." The specific Religion section of the policy does not require self-identification. Doven is notable in part because of his film activities and in part because of his scientology activities. There are plenty of sources that support the scientology activities. For what it's worth, I also think those sources support the notion that Doven identifies as being a scientologist, although, as I said, that's not required to include the category.

I will revert the change and point to this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:EGRS#Religion states that. "The requirements of WP:BLPCAT are strictly enforced."

WP:BLPCAT in turn says that: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources"[my emphasis]. :This means that EGRS requires 1. selfidentification and 2. that the belief is relevant to their notable activities or public life. It also says that the policy is strictly enforced - suggesting that only exceptionally good sources can be used to support both points. To me this clearly means that more thn implicit selfidentification is required. As this is a BLP issue I will revert again.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Regardless of the eventual outcome of discussion, while this is being discussed here on the talk page, the category should remain out. -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I don't have a problem with that. First, Maunus, thank you for the quotes from BLPCAT, very helpful (still a lot for me to learn about Wikipedia's policies). Second, I've been reviewing all the sources for the article, and, unfortunately, the majority of them are not online, so there's no easy way for me to read them. The "best" I could find that highlights Doven's adherence to Scientology is this one. It calls Doven a "prominent Scientologist." It also calls Doven a Scientology "mentor" for Cruise and Kidman. It also notes that Doven has "taken numerous Scientology courses and risen high in the organization’s ranks." The question is, is that enough? And, if not, is there more? So, I invite comments on the first question, and I'm hoping that the editors (Cirt?) who added the non-online sources can tell me if there's anything in them that would be enough to satisfy BLPCAT. As an aside and as a matter of common sense, it seems odd to me to discuss Doven's apparent involvement in Scientology so much in the article and then not put him in the category.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1) It is enough to say, in-article-text-itself, that he was a member of the organization and has worked for the organization, and also to use the quotes you gave, and attribute them directly to the cited sources. 2) It appears to be disputed as to whether this is also enough, to back up inclusion of a particular category. -- Cirt (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, you've just reframed what I already said. I'm not questioning the assertions/sources in the article. I'm asking editors' opinions, including yours, of course, as to whether the category is warranted based on that source and whether there are any other sources that would support the category's inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I will defer to the judgment of Maunus (talk · contribs) about that. -- Cirt (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of policy would be that the category require stronger evidence, but that the evidence presented is enough to support mention in the article body. There is currently a lot of discussion about the standards for applying categories to blps e.g. at WT:NPOV -I think the policy is likely to be clarified soon, but until then we had best be conservative I think.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion is missing something essential in relation to the category. The idea that EGRS applies depends entirely on the claim that Scientology is a religion. That is by no means obvious. Even the Scientology article itself is not clear on this; among other things, note that the only "religion" category on that article is "UFO religions". In some countries (e.g. Germany) Scientology has no legal status as a religion at all; in the US, it has that status in tax law (after the IRS bungled the case brought against it), but American tax law shouldn't determine how it is treated at Wikipedia. If not a religion, then what? The alternative is: a business, selling services and making profits. This perspective might be new to those who are not familiar with it, but it's not me making it up, it's a well-developed perspective. The point, then, is that if it isn't a religion then EGRS doesn't apply to the specific category in question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That argument is a non-starter. In so far as the word "religion" can be given a useful definition Scientology fits it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not what the Scientology article says; see this section in particular. It sounds like you're offering your own view on the matter. Some people think it is; others disagree. I see no reason why the one trumps the other -- and while I recognize that the same point applies in reverse, that leaves us with an open question, not a conclusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The only relevant part of that section is the one on scholarly views which makes it clear that scholarly consensus is that Scientology falls within the category of a religion for purposes of academic study. The organisation's legal status in different countries is irrelevant since that is about political status not a category definition.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you view the scholarly section as reflecting any consensus. Apparently, you're basing it on the opinion of two academics who claim that "most scholars have concluded that Scientology falls within the category of religion for the purposes of academic study", but (1) that's just their claim as to "most"; (2) even if true, the conclusion doesn't necessarily mean it qualifies as a religion - perhaps they just don't know what other category to put it into; and (3) even if "most" academics agree that it belongs in that category for the purpose of study, it doesn't follow that they've concluded it's a religion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "useful defintion" means; therefore, I don't understand how Scientology "fits it". In any event, I agree that many people differ on whether Scientology is a religion. But as I said below (which got pushed down), I just don't think we can resolve that battle here or anywhere on Wikipedia. Thus, I think we have to take the most conservative approach (essentially favorable to Scientology) on the issue and apply the policy assuming it is a religion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To define Scientology as something other than a religion is a quagmire that I don't think Wikipedia should get into. For what it's worth, Wiktionary defines Scientology as "A belief system with certain religious aspects." Interestingly, most conventional dictionaries don't even include the word. Merriam-Webster's unabridged dictionary's definition of religion that does not include god is: "the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances, and social practices found within a given cultural context." Putting aside the word "sacred", that would appear to be close to Wikipedia's definition of Scientology. Much as I think the category should be included here, I would not favor avoiding the application of the policy based on the proposition that Scientology is not a religion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above appears to be degrading. You are delving into general meta issues not specific to this particular WP:BLP page. Perhaps take those discussions to WT:SCN, please, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that comment -- it is entirely relevant to the question of whether to add (restore) the category, as I made perfectly clear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, your arguments would hold water if Wikipedia had a category for members of the organization and its staff members, as differentiated from the term "Scientologist". -- Cirt (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What is it about the term "Scientologist" that you think clinches the argument? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Its disputed status, vis a vis conflict over "self identification" versus being identified as such in WP:RS sources, and deferring to former with BLP issues. -- Cirt (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In any case this particular discussion cannot be resolved here. I would suggest possibly filing an arbcom clarification request or somehow determine this in a higher level forum. As long as there is no particular policy consensus that scientology is not a religion EGRS applies.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate next step would be content-based-RFC held on this talk page, about the above disagreement. Would above editors wish for me to facilitate that? -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede

Note: I have addressed a complaint from Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), and removed from the lede of this article the text, "the younger sister of musician Beck", see diff link. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have made some other changes per complaints from Delicious carbuncle, see diff link. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)