Talk:Tilman Hausherr

Sporgery

Source: [1][2]

Attack of the Robotic Poets
Malicious spam threatens to destroy the Internet's original killer app.
Is it time to call in the Feds?

ZDTV
6.5.1999 

By Kevin Poulsen

...

Usenet defenders are countering the assault with automation of their
own, crafting programs that kill the "sporgeries" -- a term coined by
ARS's Tilman Hausherr "because it's both spam, and forgery." 

...

And here's the original posting: [3] --Tilman 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My filter is blocking it but how about this as source http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/10675/Attack_of_the_Robotic_Poets_pg2.html --Justanother 17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Question RE: "Filter"

• Justanother, what do you mean precisely when you refer to "filter" ??? My filter is blocking it but how about this as source What "filter" is blocking what out? Smee 00:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
  • My filter seems to be blocking that website. I have a filter on my system that blocks certain websites and I guess it is blocking that one. --Justanother 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • What is this filter called? What is its nature? Smee 01:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
      • I don't know. How can I find out? --Justanother 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• You said: I have a filter on my system that blocks certain websites and I guess it is blocking that one. - How do you even know that you have a filter on your system and yet don't know specifically anything about it? Is this a work system, or a home computer? What types of websites does it block, why? It would seem extremely difficult to edit and research for an encylopedia, without being able to read all of the information, if certain websites are being blocked by a "filter"........ Smee 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Oh, I seem to make out all right but thanks for the concern. When you try to go to a website and the browser says "blocked" that means that you have a filter. --Justanother 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This wouldn't happen to be the filter called "Scieno Sitter", would it? Smee 06:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
      • Ha ha ha ha. Had you going, didn't I? Nope, of course not. It is at my office and is Websense Enterprise[4]. While it does block some stuff as "occult", the biggest problem is sometimes it considers sites "games" or "adult". That Scieno Sitter has not been around in about 10 years. Funny thing is I was talking to an Ethics Officer at the Church recently about how I disagreed with it when it was "highly suggested" and how I got in a bit of trouble over that (because Scientology is made up of PEOPLE, just like here and PEOPLE make mistakes; not because they are Scientologist but because they are PEOPLE) and that young Ethics Officer had never heard of it or of any filtering at all (and an EO would know). Like I said, that has not been around in years. But you guys still think it means something. Why? I guess because anything that ever happened in Scientology is still happening for you. And the Catholics are still burning heretics, too. --Justanother 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• I request that you please lay off of your violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Thank you. Smee 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
  • No personal attack here. --Justanother 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Putting "Life, suggested" in your edit summary.
2. I guess because anything that ever happened in Scientology is still happening for you.
3. And the Catholics are still burning heretics, too.

This is most inappropriate and highly offensive behaviour. I request that you STOP and try to act more polite. Thanks. Smee 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Stuff about me

I understand that I can't write my own article. Other stuff that might or might not be included:

• I studied computer science at TU Berlin
• Berliner Dialog work (I wrote an article about the demise of CAN in german [5])
• Article for Telepolis about the Slatkin affair (I even got paid for that one :-)) [6] updated version in [7]
• Media reported about me getting the boot from CompuServe
• for those who hate me: Italian cult lobbyist Massimo Introvigne suggested [8] that I am a terrorist :-)
• Lexikon der Informatik & Datenverarbeitung

--Tilman 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks, hopefully someone that reads German can add appropriate material. Did you get a degree? I was looking at the CESNUR site earlier and trying to decide if it is RS or in the same category as Ross and Hein. Probably the latter, privately-published, non-RS. --Justanother 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did get a degree, I am a "Diplom-Informatiker". The university told me that it is about the same as a "Masters". However, decades later, german universities are now really offering "Bachelor" and "Masters" degrees, so I am not a master. (The problem is that the word "Diploma" means nothing in the english language, even people doing a one week course get a "diploma". Mine took years to get, including a thesis)

I don't really consider Massimo Introvigne / CESNUR a reliable source. Others may see this differently. After all, he testified in court for scientology in France. --Tilman 18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we often say "degree" when we mean something that has value. The word diploma more has meaning in a context, not alone. "Degree" has more meaning standing alone, I think. Diploma still carries some similar meaning but is more ambiguous, IMO. --Justanother 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ross has testified too. There is a big difference between what someone says on the stand under oath and the threat of perjury and what they put on their personal, non-peer-reviewed web site. I know neither of them much but simply state that while their statements in RS can appear here their non-RS material should not. Similar to how there is a big difference between what you can put here, Tilman, and what you can put on your website --Justanother 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Oh, BTW, is that your real name(tm)? --Justanother 18:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is my real name. --Tilman 18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I just remember that you had something on your site like "Who is Tilman" that seemed to imply that it was a pseudonym. But it has been a while since I looked. --Justanother 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, now we know that Tilman is a real person. Thanks for the first set of useful bio data. What was your thesis about? Misou 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia based on a relational database management system. --Tilman 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Tilman, you probably have answered this question before so forgive me please but what are your feelings on your having an article here on wikipedia in the first place. --Justanother 05:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See the very first comments on this page :-) --Tilman 08:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientology celebrity FAQ

I didn't add the part about the celebrity FAQ myself (it was added by Antaeus Feldspar: [9]). While it does of course lead to my own website, isn't such allowed since the article is about that person itself (me)? Like in an article about Rick Ross, the best parts of his website or blog are mentioned. --Tilman 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a link to your home page and that is what you are entitled to.

Let's ask for comments:

Inclusion of celebrity FAQ

• Oppose - Highly POV, non-RS material and no claim to the notability of it. He already has a link to his hompage. --Justanother 18:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Highly relevant material, provides insight into Hausherr's specific writings on the subject matter. Smee 00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
  • It is highly important relevant that we ridicule celebrities and muck around in their personal lives like paparazzi or the Weekly World News? Insightful, indeed. --Justanother 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Please provide actual evidence for your allegations. --Tilman 06:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• No contest ROTFL. I'm here to debunk Wikipedia, not Scientology or the anti-cult movement for that matter. What better evidence can I get to show that POV pushers rule on Wikipedia?1? Fossa_?! 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • They do not rule. They just show up. And stick around. Usually that is all it takes. Easy. They win by default. Easy to handle. --Justanother 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:POINT. --Tilman 06:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Not sure why? OK, I see the Gale thing now. My filter wouldn't let me at that one either and I was probably looking at less then a full version when I did find something. I am on a different computer now and I see that it supports the material. Thanks. --Justanother 06:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I actually knew about the Scientology Celebrities FAQ long before I ever knew Tilman personally. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  An excellent reason. Since likely you knew your mum even earlier, let's dedicate an article to her. Fossa_?! 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  Excellent suggestion, let me dedicate an article to your mum by the same logic. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  You forgot that it wasn't me, who brought up this "argument".Fossa_?! 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Nah, just you who missed the point of it completely. If I knew about the character of Jeeves long before I heard about P. G. Wodehouse, I'm probably not the only one, and it suggests that when it comes time to write about P. G. Wodehouse then the fact that he created the familiar character of Jeeves is well worth mentioning. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree to Justanother on this one: "Highly POV, non-RS material and no claim to the notability of it." Full of maybe's, namedroppings etc. Wouldn't be allowed as RS in other context either as Tilman isn't a journalist and celebrity expert (also see: "Debernification Project Force on Wikipedia" on this page). Misou 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Now that you're back - have you found the section in the Hartwig book about me, or is the book still "missing"? --Tilman 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Good Morning, Tilman! I have not been to storage (This is a place to store superfluous stuff). Most likely tomorrow. Misou 05:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  You shouldn't have cited "sources in storage" to begin with, Misou. --Tilman 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Ja, Papa. Got it now out of the "my Germany trips" stack. As you know Gandow and the "scene" in Germany is broadly in there and you're mentioned in a sideline on page 194, 195 and somewhere later in the text. Loosely translated it says: "Hausherr writes as hobby journalist for the anti-sect magazine of the church sect commissioner Gandow". Just as I said. But by now we settled on the reference of the Berlin Dialog itself. Have you actually been bribed, too? Misou 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • 195-197 do indeed mention me - suprised me too - but this book is not a reliable source, as I explained before. You have the burden of proof that it is a reliable source per WP:RS. It is an obscure book published by her husband. Your "question" is a personal attack. (Especially since nobody has been bribed anyway) STOP it. --Tilman 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning, Tilman! Actually it is page 194 and 195, but I got the 3rd Edition, I believe, and in no way I got a burden of proof here. Your personal, unsourced opinion and strange reactions on Hartwig do not entitle me with something like that. It might be that the former - now broken - friendship between Hartwig and your wife/girlfriend and ex-Scientologist Ilse plays a role in this, I don't know. But it does not make much sense. Step back and look at it. It does not. Too much time went down the drain for this stuff already and if you look you will notice that none of the really bad statements of Hartwig against you are being used in your bio. So how about getting back to some personals? Your are 41 or 42 years old. What is your sign of the zodiac and many kids do you have? Misou 06:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hartwig's husband-published conspiracy rant-book is not a reliable source per WP:RS. You have the burden of proof that it is. Your theories and speculations are irrelevant.

If the stuff that was on pages 195-197 is now at 194-195, it suggests that she had to cut segments in her book. Heh heh :-) --Tilman 07:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yawn.... So how about getting back to some personals? Your are 41 or 42 years old. What is your sign of the zodiac and how many kids do you have? Misou 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Debernifying Tilman

The "Debernification Project Force on Wikipedia" has nothing to do with the celebrity FAQ. The DPFoW is about replacing a poor quality source with a good one. The celebrity FAQ is not a source here, except for its own existance. If you read the celebrity FAQ, this is a source of sources. Kindof like NameBase, but for scientology celebrities only and much smaller. And it also mentions celebrities who are out. (And there are many!) --Tilman 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you do not like "Bernie" since he/she/it is quoting some of your juiciest statements. So I guess you do cannot have kids, then? And no history books either. Misou 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't make the wikipedia policies. "Bernie" ist just an anonymous person. Keep this for the Anonypedia, where only anonymous research is reliable. --Tilman 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sporgery (2)

Thanks Fubar and Smeelgova for your edits (although it has been vandalized again). Could anyone replace the torymagoo and bernie sources with this one? <ref>[http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/10675/Attack_of_the_Robotic_Poets_pg2.html Attack of the Robotic Poets], ZDNet, by [[Kevin Poulsen]], May 06, 1999</ref> I'd especially appreciate the removal of the "Bernie" website, as part of the Debernification Project Force on Wikipedia, of which I am the "founder" (Replacing links to Bernie with reputable sources). ZDNet is a proper media source, Bernie is just anonymous, and while Tory isn't anonymous, she isn't a journalist and computer crime & security expert like Kevin Poulsen. --Tilman 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Scientologists in trademark disputes"

Macavinta, Courtney (January 29, 1998). "Scientologists in trademark disputes" (in English). CNET News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

• This is a good bit of material from a reputable secondary source. Please do not remove it again from the article. Thank you. Smee 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
  • It was missing half the story which you also can find on Tilman's homepage. Misou 06:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Renate Hartwig book

The book by Renate Hartwig is not a reliable source. Here is a page of one of her victims [10] who mentions several lies; here's a newspaper review that calls it a "conspiracy piece" [11]. The book is published by her husband. This is about the same as a self-published book. --Tilman 05:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Disapproved. You quote Heinemann as a "source". Heinemann is a long-term sparring partner of Hartwig in an ugly fight about money, and just as I would not take Hartwig's opinion about Heinemann, I do not take his about her. Then you actually dare to cheat the English-speaking readers in this round with giving Die Tagespost as a RS. Nice try, my friend. Apart of the content of the article - which is quite different than you try to present it - you must have missed the sub-title which is "Catholic Paper for Politics, Society and Culture". I thought you are working for the Lutherans, but if it comes to be right you obviously turn to anyone. Talking about German newspaper articles about "Die Schattenspieler", there are plenty more of them, none proving your point but quite the opposite. Misou 06:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that Heinemann and Hartwig had a fight about money. Source for this? Heinemann is an attorney, and has been a scientology critic for 30 years or so.

The title of the Tagespost article is Verschwörungstheorie. That means "Conspiracy theory". Yes, it is a catholic paper. So what?

Don't use the expression "my friend" towards me. I am not.

I did find positive articles; these were either on conspiracy sites (that claim that the "Deutsches Reich" is still active), or on her own homepage. --Tilman 06:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your strange response has nothing in there which I could answer to. You honestly state that you consider "Schwaebische Zeitung", "Stuttgarter Nachrichten" and other such national German papers a "conspiracy site"? Or you are seriously lacking research capabilities. Misou 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not make any statements about "Schwaebische Zeitung" and "Stuttgarter Nachrichten". I mentioned websites that had positive reviews of that weird book (for example, unglaublichkeiten.com). I don't know about these two newspapers having written positive reviews it. --Tilman 06:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS tells: Using questionable or self-published sources - A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight.. Having a book published by her husband counts as "vanity press" and "little or no editorial oversight" IMO. (The Tagespost article mentions that the book is full with grammar errors, and that the careful oversight was missing: Zahlreiche grammatikalische Fehler, Wiederholungen und mangelnde Stringenz in der Gedankenführung lassen eine sorgfältige Durchsicht vermissen)--Tilman 06:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just like some works called "Scientology Celebrity FAQ" or "FAQ: Scientology in Germany". Or "Scientology: Wahn und Wirklichkeit" by this Austrian guy (not Adolf, but one with less hair). Misou 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This segment is about Renate Hartwig, not about my publications. --Tilman 07:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but those were referred to in a secondary sourced citation. Smee 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

That's what the above is all about. Please read the post before commenting, thank you. Misou 04:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Renate Hartwig is not a reliable source for anything, and certainly not about me. Now all what is left is that she claims that I work for a certain employer. She doesn't provide any evidence for this, or a timeline. She just alleges it. The book was published in 2002 - five years ago. And Hartwig is a classic case of a self-published source with no oversight, since her conspiracy book was published by her husband. --Tilman 07:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. Misou 05:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I already did. The "Tagespost" article mentioned the numerous grammar errors and more, and mentioned the lack of oversight. About the publisher: See at www.directverlag.de the "Impressum". It is Paul Hartwig. --Tilman 07:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Hartwig book definitely fits the bill as a self-published work which is certainly not appropriate to be used as a source of information in a WP:BLP. I am removing this link from the article. Vivaldi (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Berliner Dialog

1. Please correct "Berlin Dialog" into "Berliner Dialog".
2. The magazine isn't "published by Thomas Gandow", this might be an oversimplification. Thomas is the "responsible" person. The "publisher" is the "Dialog Zentrum Berlin e.V.", a non-profit, of which Thomas is (probably) the chairman. [12] Sure, Thomas is the guy in charge, but there are many other contributors.
3. Pinocchio is the correct spelling --Tilman 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has taken care of that. Your friend Thomas seems to be treated as instructed. Misou 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As is your friend Kirstie, Misou. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I get it, Antaeus is Tilman's "night identity"! When is the change of the watch, 9pm? Misou 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Misou. No, seriously, thank you. Resorting to a cheap and false sockpuppet accusation (a violation of WP:CIVIL, BTW) pretty much exposes your true colors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that you feel attacked by a "sockpuppet accusation" which I have not mentioned and was not referring to. Interesting. It is pretty obvious that "Tilman" needs sleep, so "Antaeus" cannot be a sockpuppet of "Tilman". The different editing times alone would not permit that. So how on earth do you conclude I think you are a sockpuppet of "Tilman"? (BTW, if he works on saturday, he gets up in some minutes). Misou 04:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that you are now trying to retreat from your sockpuppet accusation now that you realize that you could already be in serious trouble for it. Your pretense that you were only trying to imply that Tilman and I have some arrangement to work in shifts is half-ingenious but does not work: if Watchman A works from 1 pm to 9 pm, and Watchman B works from 9 pm to 5 am, does anyone ever refer to Watchman B as the "night identity" of Watchman A? Clearly not. No, the intent of your accusation was very clear, so clear that your attempt to now paint it as paranoia to think you were making accusations about "identity" in the first place only increases your offense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I don't know who Antaeus Feldspar is (although I wouldn't be surprised it is someone I have heard about), and we have no agreement on anything. But I've always appreciated his/her edits. --Tilman 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

One of you two seems to be lying: "Support. I actually knew about the Scientology Celebrities FAQ long before I ever knew Tilman personally. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)" (Right up there on the page). Please explain. Misou 04:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar doesn't edit under his real name, unlike me. So maybe we did met as real persons. But I don't know what real person he/she is. --Tilman 07:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Be careful with those personal attacks, Misou, they will get you in trouble sooner or later. You are jumping to unjustified conclusions and then when your conclusions are proven hasty you turn it into a personal attack asserting that someone lied to you, rather than the truth that you misunderstood what you read. When I say "before I ever knew Tilman personally", I mean before I became aware of any information about Tilman Hausherr the person, as specifically contrasted by the context (or were you not paying attention to the context?) to simply being aware of the works produced by Tilman Hausherr. Now if you misunderstood that, if you didn't see a way to reconcile that, you could have asked in a civil manner for an explanation, and that civility would have been to your credit. Instead you show once again that you choose to assume bad faith in even the smallest things, and it is to your discredit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This could be the beginning of a long thread about the word "seem" basically about absolutely nothing but whether you or me are right about some things which have absolutely nothing to do with increasing the quality of Wikipedia articles. This is why I am here, at least. Therefore this will NOT be such a thread. Misou 04:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks to Essjay we will soon get a better picture on the agenda of those editing here. Misou 04:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary Sources

What is the policy on Primary Sources? I thought it would be fair to post a comment from the actual group that Tilman is criticizing to get both sides of the story. I think that a group that is being criticized deserves to have their side heard.

Hmmm, I think that such POV material should appear in RS first but if you want to research the rules and post a question to BLPN, you should get a good answer. Best of luck. --Justanother 05:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, considering you claim to be a Scientology-sympathetic, that was a very unbiased thing to do with my inclusion. It certainly does not reflect what some Scientology critics claims about Scientology. I think that Scientology's side of the issue should be included. What would be a good way to approach this issue? John196920022001 05:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a hate-group website that should not be linked to from anywhere on Wikipedia. Period. Smee 05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Please refrain from personal attacks and labels. Let's discuss how to improve this article's content, and not attack personalities and groupsJohn196920022001 06:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's. The only hate-group I am attacking is the website itself, not anyone allegedly associated with it. This type of website has not place in an encyclopedia. None. Thanks. Smee 06:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Now, Smee if I could just get you to apply the same good logic to sites like scientomogy.com. Hmmmm? --Justanother 06:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you referred to it as a "hate group web site." Because of this I would just rather not discuss personal attacks of this sort John196920022001 06:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(EC, speak of the . . . ) John, "hate-group" is highly POV. But that is OK. Smee has a POV. As we all do. The RFW site is not so much about hate as it is about exposing the hate of bigots. My main objection to it is that it also blows every little foible a person has way out of proportion. I do not think that is an effective way to deal with your critics. Now, it is not anywhere near as bad as Tilman's site, for instance, which just tries to blacklist normal everyday Scientologists. But that is Tilman's little contribution to the big hate pie. --Justanother 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the quality of Timan's Site, but I would much rather discuss how to improve the quality of this article. I will make a point that is that Scientology is a non-RS, then Timan's site is also a non-RS. This has nothing to do with Tilman, but I have been on his site John196920022001 06:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, as the subject of the article, is entitled to one EL to his site, no matter how bigoted it might be. At least, that is my feeling. And my feelings somehow strangely usually seem to mirror wikipedia policy. If I could just persuade other(s) on that point it would save a lot of wasted time (laff). --Justanother 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You have the burden of proof to show that this site is a reliable source. --Tilman 06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tilman please do not start an argument here. Let's discuss how to improve the articleJohn196920022001 06:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• I calls em as I sees em. But okay. Thread done. Smee 06:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't know about labeling groups as hate-groups. I recommend members interested in the subject buy Prisoners of Hate by Aaron T. Beck, M.D.. Beck is one of the creaters of The Cognitive Theory of Personality. Beck discuss the process that leads a person or group to develop into a hate-person or hate-group. Decribing hate as a process rather than a label cetainly changed my perspective John196920022001 06:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into reading it at some point. Smee 06:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

It does come in paper back. I think Beck intended it for lay-people and not other academics and professionals. I have bought some of Beck's other books because of my university education, and they are not light reading John196920022001 07:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

• Smee, explain why you removed an external link that I added. Thanks. It was just an external link John196920022001 07:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just an external link that has no place on an encyclopedia. It is not a WP:RS for anything. That's all. Smee 07:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Timan's site is not an RS either John196920022001 07:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • What you are doing now is violating WP:POINT, as well as WP:BEANS, and I would steer clear of that sort of behaviour. Smee 07:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

First of all WP:BEANS is not policy. As for WP:POINT I will seek clarification on that point. I have to say I am very uncomfortable with the insinuation that I am up to something. I would like you to please explain what is the difference between the the Non-link you deleted, and the non-RS link to Tilman's homepage. That is technically a non-RS link too. Responding to my statement with a threatening remark to stay clear of some sort of behavior does not work toward consensus, but will only create an argument, and I refuse to argue John196920022001 07:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you are correct that the second does not apply, but the first, WP:POINT, most certainly does. And Justanother clarified this for you above: A link to Tilman's site may be included in an article about the subject. Links to other non-RS sites may not. Smee 07:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually Justanother said: "Tilman, as the subject of the article, is entitled to one EL to his site." That is all he said. Perhaps you should look at the policy on external links. John196920022001 08:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Smee, I think there is a conflict of interest issue here with this external link deletion. You stated earlier that the external link "... is a hate-group website that should not be linked to from anywhere on Wikipedia. Period." I am not trying to be rude or anything. I have checked other articles like the Jehovah's Witness Wikipedia, and there are non-RS eternal links in that section in that particular article. Based on the guidelines for external links and on what I have seen in other Wikipedia articles, it seemed OK to me. I am going to seek a third opinion and consider their advice. John196920022001 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Misou changes

• Misou, I'm confused, what did you change in the last round? Smee 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Misou added the Hartwig book again, despite knowing that it is family-published, thus not a reliable source. --Tilman 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, will remove. Smee 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Tilman, the fact that you are emotionally concerned by Hartwig is NOT a reason to change this page. You are not a RS on her, having fought around in court and having spent hours attacking each other in at least one German newsgroup. Your "hehe" comments (up the page) indicate that you are still too much involved in this stupid "fight" which makes you liable per WP:BIAS. Your very personal POV has absolutely no place in Wikipedia.

Smee, to understand this better, you can just google Hartwig. Or check here or here. WP:POV applies: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas. ... Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research."

I saw Hartwig once on TV many years ago, she was "the expert" of those critical to Scientology showing up with some high German officials. In Germany there are several "camps" of Scientology-critics who - and this is totally insane (my personal POV) - attack each other instead of getting results. Hartwig has been attacked by/has attacked Tilman and his friend (see his own statement up the page) Priest Thomas Gandow some years ago and obviously a simple mention of her triggers off some emotions. Her book (as quoted) has all kinds of data, with and without emotional connotations and I do not share her conclusions in it. I am strong believer of multiple views, all possible sides, but I do trust the book insofar, that she knows the employer of Tilman (which he does not deny is a branch of Siemens, maybe Sietec). And that is all this RS is being used for. Misou 01:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• All of what you said above is most certainly interesting, but does not get around the fact that the source simply does not satisfy WP:RS, and therefore does not belong as a citation to back up anything within the article. Sorry. Smee 03:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes, that would also be my point. Sure, I'm also a victim of Hartwigs attacks, but the real point is that the book clearly does not satisty the criteria of WP:RS. I would even say that this book, because of its poor quality, is a perfect example of why WP:RS is so important. --Tilman 06:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Alles klar, Tilman. Misou 21:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Smee, what is your basis for this statement: "the source simply does not satisfy WP:RS"? The "source" you are referring to is "Die Schattenspieler", Third Edition, 2002, by Renate Hartwig. Language: German. Who is your "WP:RS" on this book? Or have you read it? Misou 21:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see entire discussion in this subsection, above. Thanks. Unreliable source. Smee 21:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Stunning. The entire discussion did not conclude on any RS'ability of this book. You take an anonymous ID's unsourced opinion ("Tilman") for fact and reject content and research about a book which (I just checked) has been printed by one of the bigger publishing and printing houses in Southern Germany. For me this pretty much sorts out the quality of your works. Will keep this in mind. Misou 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Printing is just printing. The publisher is "Direct Verlag Paul Hartwig". The reliability was discussed before; one of the newspaper articles specifically mentioned the lack of oversight, which resulted in numerous undetected grammar errors in the book.

"Tilman" is not anonymous. See the user page of "Tilman". --Tilman 19:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Smee, did you forget to log out and edited as "Tilman"? Or was he just answering for you? I am not so sure anymore if Tilman actually exists, since this happened now the second or third time. Misou 04:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

huh???

If you think that Smee and Tilman are the same person (who never sleeps), make a checkuser request. --Tilman 06:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Are you implying something? Because if so I do not understand. Why don't you just stick to commenting on content not contributors, as per the policy Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks??? Thanks so much. Smee 04:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Good idea. And I guess there is no difference between "Smee" and "Tilman" answering me in the content matter above!? Misou 05:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please STOP your baseless accusations and implications. Thanks. Smee 05:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Hold your horses, will you. I am asking Tilman a question and get an answer from Smee. I am asking again a question to Tilman and get an answer from Smee. Pretty obvious, isn't it? Misou 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Tilman Hausherr merge

It has been suggested and seconded that we merge Tilman Hausherr to Opposition to cults and new religious movements. His only notability, and there is not much RS to support it, is that he is a critic of Scientology. As far as software, authors of minor (and most major) software are not notable simply for that and are not included here. While "this one doesn't have an article" arguments are not really valid, it has been mentioned already that Irfan Skiljan, author of IrfanView, one of the most popular Windows freeware programs ever developed, does not have a bio here. Please discuss at Talk:Opposition to cults and new religious movements#Tilman Hausherr merge, not here! --Justanother 14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to discuss at your proposed location. Tilman is known in more than one field and there is no reason why this article should not exist on its own. I find Justanother's behaviour as well as John's to be disruptive. Both characters consistently edit articles to whitewash the numerous abuses of Scientology, now they come to this article to try to completely erase one of their critics. Vivaldi (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since another person brought it up I think we should discuss it John196920022001 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Annoying edits

John196920022001, edits like these [13][14][15][16][17] make it hard to WP:AGF. Such edits seem to be rather motivated by "revenge" for something (likely, my activities in Steven Hassan related to your CESNUR article etc) and less by the intention to improve articles. You inserted data from an obvious smear site, and did this several times - despite that even a scientologist here has agreed that this site is not useful. Then you came up with the "idea" to merge the article into another, despite that reading the article shows that my activities are in several fields.

Obviously I have a CoI here, so this isn't a formal complaint, more a comment and a polite rant.

I suggest that you just "get over it". I've had many links to the research on my website removed from wikipedia per WP:RS, and I've accepted it. I even "got over" having my "spare time" quote removed from this article. I just don't care anymore. And I "got over" constantly seeing several people inserting smear links or poorly sourced data in this article and me not really being allowed to do anything about it, except complaining in the discussion page. (Luckily, some "wikifriends" are helpful :-)).

Such "targeted" activities are usually unsuccessful; that, in turn, could also result in more bitterness on your side. Think about it. Relax. Keep the caffeine level low. --Tilman 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, don't accuse me of AGF issues. In the Steve Hassan article you accused me of using propaganda and lying by omission. That is not AGF either. The statement "you inserted data from an obvious smear site, and did this several times - despite that even a scientologist here has agreed that this site is not useful" is not exactly true. A Scientologist did correct me on that issue. My reply was "considering you claim to be a Scientology-sympathetic, that was a very unbiased thing to do with my inclusion. It certainly does not reflect what some Scientology critics claims about Scientology." I did not do it "despite that even a scientologist here has agreed that this site is not useful." That statement is incorrect. Lastly, the discussion section is for discussing content and not personalities. This was the wrong place to rant John196920022001 15:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

May I politely suggest you both walk away from this situation and each other for a short while? I know we all can get heated, but we need to try and stay cool. The Backlog of Doom, the backlogged Good Article reviews, the friendly and useful Editor Review and stuff up for deletion could always use some attention if you need wiki-distraction. Be well!!! Vassyana 16:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Though perhaps there is some lack of WP:CIVIL going on here, those edits cited by Tilman uptop were clearly examples inappropriate behaviour... Smee 17:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

• • Didn't you understand what Vassyana posted? You just had to add something to esculate the issue, Smee. Is what you posted going to assist Vassyana in his suggestion? John196920022001 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Listed for 3rd AFD, to solve "Merge" debate.

• I have listed the article for a 3rd AFD, in order to solve this "Merge" debate. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilman Hausherr (3rd nomination). Thanks. Smee 07:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Propose to represent "FAQ: Scientology in Germany" (2001) claims

The reference in Salon seems to denote notability and informative value. Rather than requiring that everyone follow the link and read the huge FAQ, I propose that Hausherr's most general claims be concisely represented in this article, plus any response from Scientology concerning the FAQ. ClaudeReigns 11:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I finally did manage to find the somewhat small FAQ amidst the usual sea of anti-Scientology tripe. Last updated in 2001; a minor FAQ associated with Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,soc.culture.german. Hardly notable, it got an incidental mention in one RS? Hardly something that we would highlight here. However, there is a need on this project for an article, Religion discrimination in Germany, that would include US State Department and UN Human Rights Commission's discussions of the problems over there. This article would include discussion of the Sect Commissioners, especially Lutheran Sect Commissions, that are active in promoting discrimination and religious intolerance in Germany. Perhaps Tilman's FAQ can be useful there, not so much for inclusion, but as an aid to locating resources for the article. --Justanother 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Small FAQ? It was like forty questions long with subparts. Yes, definitely highlight it, being careful to stick to the most relevant points, i.e. forgo the references to other Germany personalities, and quotes of opinion from the FAQ. Basically just show with highly abridged examples that Hausherr answered questions regarding the German stance toward Scientology, and make notation of his bias, and finally a half-sentence brief summary of any reasoning for that bias he may include. Then the paragraph would be a paragraph and not a couple of terse sentences. A second paragraph to follow it would, where citeable, represent the response to the examples we detail Hausherr citing, and also if citeable, represent a viewpoint held within Scientology of Hausherr's bias or approach. Details like these would improve the quality of the article and represent opposing views. I'm confident you could write that paragraph well. I'm not opposed to a Religious discrimination in Germany article, but clearly, unless it is deleted, there currently is a Tilman Hausherr article which refers to his FAQ. It should be expanded. More information makes a better article.

Were I to assume bad faith on your part based on previous unrelated experiences, which I am not, by the way, the tactic by other groups condemned as "cults" was to first attempt to block the information altogether, and failing that, attempting to merely create a poorly written article. I am by no means opposed to representing the very credible assertion that Hausherr's views amount to religious discrimination, but since his research was found newsworthy by Salon, the average reader (like myself) who is only passingly familiar with Scientology, and was unaware of its status in Germany or Hausherr's views should be able to read our article and know what we are talking about. Likewise, if one reads an article on religious discrimination in Germany, the view that Germany's actions against Scientology constitute religious persecution should likewise be represented along with documentation about the Holocaust as well as any possible reforms and responses that someone more familiar with the subject could point out. All of these articles should be good articles. This one is here and I'd like to improve it now. The Tilman Hausherr article isn't yet to the point where it would impress an AP English teacher. Not that I claim to be one. But I have standards. It should show as well as tell. So should the article you propose. I have every confidence we could help each other toward those collectively beneficial ends. ClaudeReigns 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting "back-door" method to "assume bad faith" that little bit, no? "I am not saying that you beat your wife but if I were to say that then I guess I would say that you beat her after you get drunk each Friday night at the White Horse Tavern on Wilson Street". Laff. --Justanother 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What I am assuming is that you are not "laffing" at my proposal, as well, but merely cordially and silently pondering it. I will be bold and make the necessary changes at my leisure, and I believe they will be upheld by consensus. You are of course welcome to represent the citeable Scientological views of Hausherr's research. BTW How did you know that I beat my wife? That's uncanny. ClaudeReigns 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am rather obviously "laffing" at your back-door presumption of bad faith. Re the size of his FAQ (though they do say that size doesn't matter), I can only assume that you are not familiar with Usenet FAQs. Here is one for comparison. Not to imply that religious discrimination in Germany could possibly hold a candle to an open-source operating system as far as importance but simply to point out that FAQs run large. Or video cards; here is Part 1 of 4. I do not object to good articles. I like them in fact. I do object to using this project for advocacy by inclusion of non-notable material in this extremely notable forum (wikipedia). See WP:NOT a soapbox. So do I think that content from Hausherr's FAQ belongs in his article? No, the FAQ is not about him nor his efforts. It is about Scientology in Germany. So start an article on that. And even there I do not think that the FAQ is worth more than a mention though it may serve us editors as a guide to research. But so could an e-mail from me to you. Doesn't make my e-mail to you notable nor appropriate for inclusion here. Re your wife, the boilermakers at the Horse are on me this Friday. --Justanother 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys, let not argue with each other and work on creating good Wikipedia articles John196920022001 08:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Middle Name

It's so hard to make the assertion without a (reliable) source. Is Tilman's middle name Joerg? Can we just ask him? LOL ClaudeReigns 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[removed attempts to reveal personal information] Gotta run, be back next week. Misou 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Antaeus Feldspar for removing the alleged "personal information". This stalking is really annoying. Misou should keep this to RFW and the usenet, where it belongs. --Tilman 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Flight delay... lucky you. Not to forget the permanent misinterpretation of WP in regards to this article which is nowhere else the same. Misou 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there some critical information from a fact-checked source we can use? The "Religious Freedom Watch" page should be considered an official response by Scientology, as it is a Scientology sponsored site, but I don't necessarily find it a RS as it doesn't cite sources as Hausherr's FAQ on Germ Sci does. The Dialog article from 3/96 should place Hausherr's year of birth at 1970 or 1971--unless there is a more reliable source stating to the contrary. If the criticisms of Scientology by Tilman Hausherr were represented we could add the following in a Criticism or Reception section:

The Scientology sponsored site "Religious Freedom Watch" has responded to criticism by Hausherr with various unsupported claims including statements that Hausherr spends "the vast majority of his time vilifying the practices of minority religions", that Tilman practices threatening by posting the personal information of opponents [ironic, isn't it?], that Hausherr is a supporter of Eugenics, Ursula Caberta, James Randi, and Thomas Gandow, that he "defends psychiatrists who have been convicted of such crimes as sexually molesting their patients", that he maligns "a variety of spiritual beliefs including transcendental meditation and different branches of East Indian religions", and that he may possibly work for the German government.

Obviously this is a source which doesn't demonstrate a balance, as the Hausherr FAQ on German Scientology does demonstrate by including a reference to "InSects" as an example of opposition to Scientology going too far. The statement by Scientology could be modified to remove "unsupported" if various primary sources are found to support each of the accusations. The summary of these criticisms, however, would be removed if the source was found to be at all libelous. I'm not sure that we've represented Tilman Hausherr's specific criticisms of Scientology, and so it would be odd to post an ad hominem refutation of those criticisms just yet. But if we do represent Hausherr's criticism (and I think this forceful reaction on the part of Scientology necessitates that we do indeed explore it), they should not be posted without this response by Scientology, which seems to be their official line on Hausherr. ClaudeReigns 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened to WP:RS, WP:NPA and WP:HARASS ? RFW isn't to be used here. Plus, Misou is again posting information about me that is partially true, partially invented, partially pure speculation. --Tilman 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Information in the article must also conform to WP:BLP, and, in addition to the policies cited by Tilman above, this means that information in the article must come from reputable secondary sources. Smee 03:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Misou's RFW source (not conduct)

Mr. Hausherr: Thank you for participating. While "Religious Freedom Watch" is about as reliable as an e-meter for most matters of fact, it is a reliable source for an official Scientology opinion of your efforts and it furthermore typifies Scientology responses to critics in general. I hope you are not opposed to a further understanding by the public of the responses by Scientology to its critics. The current WP essay on criticism asks that arguments be represented on both sides, and I agree with it to the extent that I use it as a guideline. I'm not sure that WP:NPA should be construed as not representing significant personal attacks that happen outside of Wikipedia. If I understand the argument as it now stands correctly, you have asserted and supported through cited research that Scientology is a harmful pseudoscientific money cult and not at all to be legitimized as a religion, while Scientology's response your criticisms is to debase you as a person in the ways that I described (all those various ad hominem attacks). If you're referring to Misou's posting of your personal information, I oppose that practice on Wikipedia and everywhere else, and assume it should be deleted as per Smee as a clear violation of WP:HARASS with further discussion at ANI. If you are unhappy with my summary of the unsupported and highly inflammatory page, I truly apologize. I would be happy to discuss with you my personal biases through email so you can see exactly where I'm going, and receive from you advice and criticism as well. Any information (trivial or not) to which you could direct my attention from reliable sources would be most welcome. Respectfully, ClaudeReigns 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced information. [18] --Tilman 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the opinion of other editors on the now-deleted source from Relgious Freedom Watch? Am I incorrect to think that it represents an ad-hominem attempt by Scientology to refute the work of Tilman Hausherr? Just because Misou violated WP:HARASS doesn't mean that a possible source should be buried as well. If all such inconvenient sources about biographical subjects are to be snuffed then suggest we end all living bios with "and they lived happily ever after." ClaudeReigns 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To address the most pertinent point, is RFW in fact, as you say it is above, "a reliable source for an official Scientology opinion"? The last time I checked, Religious Freedom Watch didn't even admit out loud that the only "religion" whose "freedom" it cares about is Scientology, let alone actually announce itself as having any status to pronounce an "official Scientology opinion". You suggest that RFW is an "inconvenient" source but it would appear instead to be an irrelevant source; treating it as somehow reliable or relevant just because its agenda and its bias is blatantly pro-Scientology is somewhat akin to saying that if anyone has ever criticized David Duke, then any ad hominem postings on Stormfront which target the person who criticizes Duke are suddenly completely valid material for that person's article -- and that failing to treat such ad hominem attacks by third parties as "sources" is somehow equivalent to 'end[ing] all living bios with "and they lived happily ever after."'? I can't say I feel the logic there holds up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I hear what you are saying. I guess we have a difference of opinion. I'd hear that little tidbit and go, "Wow, A.F. ended up on Stormfront? I knew A.F. was a David Duke critic, but man! He must have really p.o.'ed the Dukies. Let's definitely put that in the article." If A.F. was supposed to ba a notable David Duke critic, it would read like an important part of the overall resume to me. Am I in the minority then? BTW thanks for addressing my point. I'm sure it must appear like just a silly newb argument to some, but this really reflects my PoV. ClaudeReigns 02:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that an important part of NPOV is "undue weight". RFW and Stormfront are both knocked completely out right away by the fact that they are not verifiable sources -- but even if that was somehow not a factor, why should we reprint between six and nine unsupported accusations against the article's subject? Just because someone with an agenda made those accusations? We're looking for information about the subject, but "people slander him" barely even qualifies as information in the first place, let alone justifies reprinting the slander. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How about 'T.H. is a target of the Scieno Fair Game policy as evidenced by RFW attacks.' This demonstrates his significance in the anti-cult community by placing him aside Steven Hassan, Rick Ross, etc. It seems like this is a significator. ClaudeReigns 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It was done this way until a few months ago and I didn't even mind it. But there has been a general consensus on trying to improve the quality of sources, i.e. trying to get more academic, journalistic and expert sources, and less "so and so has said" sources. This resulted also in some critic sources being deleted, including my own web page. I can live with this. --Tilman 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• That "Religious Freedom Watch" Web site has no place whatsoever anywhere in this encyclopedia project, and any links should be removed forthright. Smee 03:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Okay, at this point, my great respect for Smee has conflicted with my wikiphilosophy and my brain has officially frozen. I will summarize my grossly generalized perceptions and step back. Scientology proponents suppress information critical of their organization and simulataneously propagate information about their opponents, cloaking themselves in suspicion and creating appeal for critics. Scientology opponents suppress information critical of their individual efforts and simultaneously propagate information about Scientology, cloaking themselves in suspicion and creating appeal for Scientology. It's some sort of informational feedback cycle that makes my mind twitch. Maybe I should pray about it :D ClaudeReigns 05:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote Scientology proponents suppress information critical of their organization. What "organization"???

Plus, read WP:BLP. Clearly, RFW is a propaganda site, with no quality whatsoever. The author is not journalist, scholar, or expert in his matter. The texts are just poorly written rants. --Tilman 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry ClaudeReigns, but I have to fervently agree with Tilman on this one. The "Scientology opponents" as you call them, are not suppressing information. However, links and references to a Web site whose sole purpose is to libel its perceived critics, should not be allowed. Some would argue that the Web site itself is simply an extension of the Scientology practice of Fair Game (Scientology), where L. Ron Hubbard stated: Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed. (The quote is in that article.) Smee 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

== RFW source ==

Mr. Hausherr: Thank you for participating. While "Religious Freedom Watch" is about as reliable as an e-meter for most matters of fact, it is a reliable source for an official Scientology opinion of your efforts and it furthermore typifies Scientology responses to critics in general. I hope you are not opposed to a further understanding by the public of the responses by Scientology to its critics. The current WP essay on criticism asks that arguments be represented on both sides, and I agree with it to the extent that I use it as a guideline. I'm not sure that WP:NPA should be construed as not representing significant personal attacks that happen outside of Wikipedia. If I understand the argument as it now stands correctly, you have asserted and supported through cited research that Scientology is a harmful pseudoscientific money cult and not at all to be legitimized as a religion, while Scientology's response your criticisms is to debase you as a person in the ways that I described (all those various ad hominem attacks). If you're referring to Misou's posting of your personal information, I oppose that practice on Wikipedia and everywhere else, and assume it should be deleted as per Smee as a clear violation of WP:HARASS with further discussion at ANI. If you are unhappy with my summary of the unsupported and highly inflammatory page, I truly apologize. I would be happy to discuss with you my personal biases through email so you can see exactly where I'm going, and receive from you advice and criticism as well. Any information (trivial or not) to which you could direct my attention from reliable sources would be most welcome. Respectfully, ClaudeReigns 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced information. [19] --Tilman 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the opinion of other editors on the now-deleted source from Relgious Freedom Watch? Am I incorrect to think that it represents an ad-hominem attempt by Scientology to refute the work of Tilman Hausherr? Just because Misou violated WP:HARASS doesn't mean that a possible source should be buried as well. If all such inconvenient sources about biographical subjects are to be snuffed then suggest we end all living bios with "and they lived happily ever after." ClaudeReigns 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To address the most pertinent point, is RFW in fact, as you say it is above, "a reliable source for an official Scientology opinion"? The last time I checked, Religious Freedom Watch didn't even admit out loud that the only "religion" whose "freedom" it cares about is Scientology, let alone actually announce itself as having any status to pronounce an "official Scientology opinion". You suggest that RFW is an "inconvenient" source but it would appear instead to be an irrelevant source; treating it as somehow reliable or relevant just because its agenda and its bias is blatantly pro-Scientology is somewhat akin to saying that if anyone has ever criticized David Duke, then any ad hominem postings on Stormfront which target the person who criticizes Duke are suddenly completely valid material for that person's article -- and that failing to treat such ad hominem attacks by third parties as "sources" is somehow equivalent to 'end[ing] all living bios with "and they lived happily ever after."'? I can't say I feel the logic there holds up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I hear what you are saying. I guess we have a difference of opinion. I'd hear that little tidbit and go, "Wow, A.F. ended up on Stormfront? I knew A.F. was a David Duke critic, but man! He must have really p.o.'ed the Dukies. Let's definitely put that in the article." If A.F. was supposed to ba a notable David Duke critic, it would read like an important part of the overall resume to me. Am I in the minority then? BTW thanks for addressing my point. I'm sure it must appear like just a silly newb argument to some, but this really reflects my PoV. ClaudeReigns 02:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that an important part of NPOV is "undue weight". RFW and Stormfront are both knocked completely out right away by the fact that they are not verifiable sources -- but even if that was somehow not a factor, why should we reprint between six and nine unsupported accusations against the article's subject? Just because someone with an agenda made those accusations? We're looking for information about the subject, but "people slander him" barely even qualifies as information in the first place, let alone justifies reprinting the slander. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How about 'T.H. is a target of the Scieno Fair Game policy as evidenced by RFW attacks.' This demonstrates his significance in the anti-cult community by placing him aside Steven Hassan, Rick Ross, etc. It seems like this is a significator. ClaudeReigns 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It was done this way until a few months ago and I didn't even mind it. But there has been a general consensus on trying to improve the quality of sources, i.e. trying to get more academic, journalistic and expert sources, and less "so and so has said" sources. This resulted also in some critic sources being deleted, including my own web page. I can live with this. --Tilman 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• That "Religious Freedom Watch" Web site has no place whatsoever anywhere in this encyclopedia project, and any links should be removed forthright. Smee 03:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Okay, at this point, my great respect for Smee has conflicted with my wikiphilosophy and my brain has officially frozen. I will summarize my grossly generalized perceptions and step back. Scientology proponents suppress information critical of their organization and simulataneously propagate information about their opponents, cloaking themselves in suspicion and creating appeal for critics. Scientology opponents suppress information critical of their individual efforts and simultaneously propagate information about Scientology, cloaking themselves in suspicion and creating appeal for Scientology. It's some sort of informational feedback cycle that makes my mind twitch. Maybe I should pray about it :D ClaudeReigns 05:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote Scientology proponents suppress information critical of their organization. What "organization"???

Plus, read WP:BLP. Clearly, RFW is a propaganda site, with no quality whatsoever. The author is not journalist, scholar, or expert in his matter. The texts are just poorly written rants. --Tilman 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry ClaudeReigns, but I have to fervently agree with Tilman on this one. The "Scientology opponents" as you call them, are not suppressing information. However, links and references to a Web site whose sole purpose is to libel its perceived critics, should not be allowed. Some would argue that the Web site itself is simply an extension of the Scientology practice of Fair Game (Scientology), where L. Ron Hubbard stated: Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed. (The quote is in that article.) Smee 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello again. It is rather interesting how you guys behave once I am out of town. Suddenly "RFW" became a source of mine. BULLSHIT! A little look in my edit history tells you exactly the opposite. Otherwise, I am happy to be back in the zoo. Misou 03:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)