Talk:Andreas Heldal-Lund/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rumors and Value Judgements

1. "the most prominent website": Rumor, no source given, no empirical evidence, not even a suggestion, how to measure prominence Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A source can be easily found for this. Stay tuned.wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The O Clambake page makes a much more credible assessment, but why should the same thing copied here.Fossa 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Type "scientology" into Google. There are 15,800,000 hits. www.scientology.org (the official site) is the first hit. Xenu.net is the second hit. That sounds prominent to me. Phr 09:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

2. "offering material against": Fact - Where is the material in favor of Scientology on Heldal-Lund's website? Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Evidently this "offering material against" statement has been fixed. wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I xcanged "information" with "material against". "Information" is the balanced delievery of facts; H-L publishes his opinion and only pieces of facts that speak (in his view)Fossa 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Andreas will add alternative viewpoints to his website. For items that he has received e-mails about, he adds a bubble on the right that says "A Second Opinion". For an example of this see: this and this Vivaldi (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

3. "with information critical of": Euphemism. Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a euphemism. wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"The KKK dispenses information about crimes committed by blacks". "The GOP has a website with information on Hillary Clinton." Please. That's a euphemism.Fossa 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying it's a euphemism doesn't make it one. In a paranoid enough mind, any sentence could be a euphemism. wikipediatrix 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

4. "critics" vs. "critical of" look up these terms in your favorite dictionary Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

He who eats is an eater. He who squawks is a squawker. He who criticizes is a critic. No amount of Clintonian word-parsing is going to help you put the spin on this that you seek. wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please check your favorite dictionary. These two words have different connotations. Roger Ebert is a film critic, even if he is NOT critical of a certain film. A critic evaluates a phenomenon on the grounds of certain standards, and he can find that the object he critiques (rather than criticizes) can meet his standards. He, who critiques is a critic, not he who is critical of.Fossa 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

More word-parsing. You have selected one shade of meaning among many, and then by some osmosis, you have convinced yourself that is the only shade of meaning. It won't wash. wikipediatrix 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I use the most common meaning of the word. The Green Bay Packers are not "critics" of the Minnesota Vikings; they are their opponnents. Hillary Clinton is not a "critic" of Dubya, but his opponnent. If you still disagree, please, substatiate your interpreation with a dictionary. Fossa 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Hillary Clinton IS a critic of George Bush. They use that terminology constantly. "Critics of the Iraq War" are not people who sit around debating its usefulness, it's people who are openly opposed to it. Want proof? You keep telling me to check a dictionary. Here we go: from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

crit·ic

n.

1. One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.

2. One who specializes especially professionally in the evaluation and appreciation of literary or artistic works: a film critic; a dance critic.

3. One who tends to make harsh or carping judgments; a faultfinder.

Ah, a faultfinder. See. There you have it. Ta-da. End of the damn argument. --The reverend 08:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

5. "focusing on and": redundant Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

not sure what this is about. Explain? wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a phrase that does not add any additional meaning to the sentence; it's superfluous.Fossa 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know what "redundant" means. That wasn't what I meant when I asked for an explanation. wikipediatrix 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

6. "the ill effects of religious": "ill": value judgement; "effects" hard to measure; "religious": contested Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

this must have been fixed already also. wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

7. "so-called cults" vs. "cults": "Cult" is a laden term with a strong pejorative connotation: value jdgement-- Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that editors shouldn't call Scientology a cult, but if other people are calling Scientology a cult, then "so-called cults" is acceptable. wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But that's exacytly my point: Scientology is a so-called cult."Fossa 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So-called by experts on cults, and so-called by former members who escaped. Glad we agree on this. wikipediatrix 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Norway fraud

I (Tilman) made the change re: civil fraud (which does of course exist, since one can sue another for fraud to recover the damage). For some reason I wasn't logged in. While I don't remember whether the Magne Berge case was indeed Andreas' motivation (wasn't it also free speech), it is the biggest case in Norway (or rather, the only one I ever heard about). Andreas has the same attorney as Magne Berge, and they have met each other.--Tilman 21:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fossa's arguments

Today Fossa's revert du jour states in its edit summary that Antaeus Feldspar does not address his arguments on the talk page. I don't really see much argument to address, and half of the matters Fossa complains about above seem to have already been taken care of. Considering that Fossa's latest edit seeks to remove what he calls "rumor" and ends up gutting half the article, I think it's rather hypocritical that Fossa has made no discussion of these changes here on the talk page. wikipediatrix 14:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Another day, still more edit-warring by Fossa, and still no discussion here. wikipediatrix 22:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars are always two-sided, and since it seems that you are the only one who reads my comments here, I put my arguments in the metatext. Personal websites and Usenet/Fora postings are simply inaccepatble sources for Wikipedia. For change, for good reasons Wikipedia-Critic

The question is moot anyhow, because I found a page on xenu.net with the same information and replaced the Usenet citation with it. You could have easily done the same thing with a five second Google search, but of course you prefer to remove the information outright. wikipediatrix 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I leave your misinformnation for the moment, but the information you presented is just as credible as the statement, I just uploaded on my webbsite. Fossa 23:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not as credible a source on the matter as Tory Christman. wikipediatrix 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I totally agree, but in this particular case, it's a different matter; I just put up that "information" on my website for the heck of it. And, obviously, it's false. So, in this specific case, Tory Christman and myself are equally credible. Fossa 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: I liked revert du jour; you are good with words sometimes; if only form would match the content. Fossa 01:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that such a critic of Wikipedia would be so dedicated to it. Are you a scientologist, Fossa? --Smoke002 04:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Commas and quotation marks

Could someone remove the commas and add speech marks to "by, what he has called, the criminal and corrupt Church of Scientology."? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.240.131.62 (talk) 19:36, July 14, 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right on the commas. Looking for those words, so that I know which of them belong inside the quotation marks, I actually can't find them coming from Heldal-Lund, at least not on a first search, so I'm asking for a citation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP says...

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

   * Verifiability
   * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
   * No original research

As a reminder. COFS 02:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Major violation of WP:BLP

Twice today COFS (talk · contribs) has added the false claim that Tory Christman has credited Andreas Heldal-Lund with convincing her to leave her husband -- the first time incorrectly calling this unsourced allegation a "minor detail",[1] the second time not even bothering to presenting any reason for restoring that and other inappropriate material.[2]. He then goes further and cites the hate site "Religious Freedom Watch", which has already been removed as an EL, as a reference for this allegation about Heldal-Lund's supposed role in convincing Christman to leave her husband.[3] What does it mean that this supposed reference (useless, of course, since RFW is most definitely not WP:RS) doesn't even mention Heldal-Lund, let alone support the allegation it's supposedly being cited for? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not using RFW as RS. But thank you for asking that question. What is WP:RS is the open letter of Harold Bezazian, who has a right to give his side of the story on Tory Bezazian and is notable enough to be mentioned. Tory Christman/Bezazian praises Heldal-Lund for helping her to decide to leave Scientology and her husband (as is obvious from his statement). I did not put in the praise of Tory Christman in the Andreas Heldal-Lund article and we might discuss whether this section is noteworthy at all. But that is what he helped her with. COFS 02:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Another WP:NPA warning. The place where Andreas Heldal-Lund lives is not very important, but it gives more color to the biography. The information is not private as Andreas volunteers it on his own websites (which is ref'ed as well for anyone to verify that). Your "stalking" claim against public reliable sources is just bad faith and NPA violation. There is no need to be aggressive again me. COFS 03:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

An Article in the Norwegian National Paper Dagbladet's "Magasinet" from Feb. 23rd 2008 (p.27), Tory Christman says that she was "assigned to find\stake out websites critical to Scientology" and that this introduced her to Heldal-Lund and that conversations with him was akey element to her later leaving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorSmurf (talk • contribs) 11:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since RFW is not a reliable source (it is a smear site), documents on that site are dubious at best. We don't know for sure if Harold did wrote this letter at all. It should also be noted that while Tory has been quoted a lot by the media, Harold has never been, even though journalists usually try to contact both sides. (Which is why there always a statement by scientology, even in articles that are highly critical) --Tilman 17:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to use different yardsticks when talking about Scientology-connected websites. Why is OK to use Lermanet - a total hate site, evidenced by choice of hate terms - as a reference? Or "scientology-kills" (hate term already in the domain name)? I have left them in there IF the reference on the domain was a document and not a polemic statement. Same applies for RFW. I would not accept links to the polemic on there but I agree to link to documents and photos on this site. COFS 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lermanet is not a hate site - you just allege it, without evidence. scientology-kills may sound hard, but then you should read the so-called "lisa clause" or just KSW, which does mention that practicing scientology can be highly dangerous. So "scientology kills" is about similar to "drunk driving kills" or "smoking kills" or "gun kills" or "saturated fat kills". --Tilman 18:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

RFW is not a hate site - you just allege it, without evidence. Both sites present extreme viewpoints and you happen to be more friendly with one of them than with the other one. Lermanet is fully capable of inciting hate just by the choice of propaganda terms and its style. But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether we can put WP:EL/WP:RS to documents on such sites or not. If not, the next logical step is to remove most links in Scientology-related articles as almost all of them have links to a handful of extreme-POV sites in there. That is a simple point of fairness, even though I assume that - with 99% anti-Scientology editors or those whose understanding of neutrality is "oppose Scientology" - removing extreme-POV links is likely to be unpopular. COFS 21:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a hate site. (I've been watching it and its predecessors for many years.) But more important—whose site is it? While the domains are registered to Joel Phillips, there is no indication of who created the content and takes legal responsibility for it. AndroidCat 00:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"I am not using RFW as RS. But thank you for asking that question. What is WP:RS is the open letter of Harold Bezazian, who has a right to give his side of the story on Tory Bezazian and is notable enough to be mentioned. Tory Christman/Bezazian praises Heldal-Lund for helping her to decide to leave Scientology and her husband (as is obvious from his statement)." In order of appearance:

• Yes, adding an allegation supported solely by content on RFW is indeed using RFW as if it was a reliable source, which it is not.
• Even if "the open letter of Harold Bezazian" was given to us by a reliable site, why would "his side of the story on Tory Bezazian" be relevant to the article on Andreas Heldal-Lund? Answer: it isn't.
• Thirdly, Tory gives Heldal-Lund credit for helping her to decide to leave Scientology. You cannot combine that with someone else's belief -- even her ex-husband's -- that 'leaving Scientology inevitably meant leaving her husband' and insert the synthesis "Tory credits Heldal-Lund with helping her decide to leave her husband."
• Fourthly, it is not "obvious from his statement" that Tory credits Heldal-Lund with helping her decide to leave her husband, because again his statement does not even mention Heldal-Lund. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of POV, lack of sources, no relevance and WP:LEAD violation

On October 18, 2005 text about Heldal-Lund's affiliation with the Norwegian Heathen Society was removed stating that this text amounted to POV. Oblivious of this I entered text to the same effect a while later, however, after edit warring between Fossa and Antaeus Feldspar this text also enden up being deleted on March 28, 2006, possibly by mistake, as no reason for this was given. Again text covering this area of Andreas' activities was added and subsequently removed on March 24, 2007 citing lack of sources. The latest chapter in this drama is re-adding by COFS and then deletion by Antaeus Feldspar on April 26, 2007 (and) arguing that this is "information with no apparent relevance". The text gets re-added and again it gets removed on April 26 citing violation of WP:LEAD.

I was the leader of the Heathen Society between 1994 and 1997. At that time Andreas became regional leader for Rogaland, one of Norway's 20 counties. The current Heathen Society website is rather tepid and doesn't seem to cover much of the organizations history neyond the past three or four years, however at the Wayback Machine there's an archive of the old Heathen Society web pages replete with references to Andreas' activities (in Norwegian). He even was web master at that time. __meco 12:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I did one of the deletions, because it was unsourced. People who add something should make the effort to include the source.

I know that Andreas was or is involved with the heathen society. It had been used to attack him. People who add this do of course have a reason to add it; nevertheless, I don't mind, if it is properly sourced and written neutrally. This is why I didn't delete it this morning (although I didn't check the sources very much yet). But I agree, it shouldn't be in the lead. So someone should add it elsewhere, e.g. in a section. --Tilman 17:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. COFS 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Norway 1996

This and this does not support the thesis that Heldal-Lund became active "because" of a Norway fraud case. Both ref's do not mention him at all. COFS 17:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This one [4] does. --Tilman 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is really amusing. The old LMT/Minton Germany branch has its own website... anyway, it does not support your claim either, i.e. does not say that Heldal-Lund got active because of Norway fraud. What was his motivation then? Any information you want to share with us? COFS 18:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Andreas tells it himself. Read the text: In 1996 I read a story about how a Norwegian ex-Scientologist sued and won a case against the Church of Scientology. It made me curious enough to spend a weekend doing research on the Internet. and What began as a week-end stunt developed into countless long nights and a steadily and still growing material documenting the Church of Scientology. And I have no idea where you got that idea of "LMT/Minton Germany branch". --Tilman 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw I initially thought that you were wishing for evidence scientology had been found liable for fraud in Norway, which is why I researched these links that confirmed it. --Tilman 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually do and your link finding is appreciated. The one you put in before did not give the text you are quoting now but I see that you fixed. No intent for PA, sorry if it came across this way. I actually did not notice that you are a member of this organization but searching for activities it seemed to restrict itself to present awards between 2000 and 2004, see here. Could you give me some examples what the unsung activities and achievements of this Human Rights group are? COFS 23:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What?

The article includes the following sentence, the end of which sounds rather inaccurate:

"from the European-American Citizens Committee for Human Rights and Religious Freedom in the USA, an organization which states it is composed of "Scientology opponents from all over the world.""

This sounds quite unlikely. Please double-check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.248.99 (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)