Jump to content

Talk:Bennetta Slaughter

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

Arbitrary section

[edit]

Consider adding her move to St. Louis and her role for Applied Scholastics, and the sale of AMC. --Tilman 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty fuzzy on the particulars of these details.... will look into it. Jump in if you get the time. wikipediatrix 20:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonuser Edits

[edit]

I question the neutrality of this article because there have been many edits by 70.127.190.127, some of which were without explanation and have sense been reverted. The IP address 70.127.190.127 traces back to the Tampa Bay area, and I am unsure as to whether there are pro-Scientology persons slanting the article in their favor. Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reverted some of it. Some key segments were indeed removed, which made clear that Bennetta Slaughter was trying to counter the bad PR. --Tilman 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I find something very bias in this page and it the use of anti-Scientology web sites as a reference. I’m talking about the reference: “According to slatkinfraud.com (a site critical of the Church of Scientology)”. All references should come from reputable sources like a newspaper. The use of an anti-Scientology website as a reference makes this page bias. Bravehartbear 02:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This answer seems to conflict with your answer to the non-user edits question here? DIFF Are you responsible for the edits, or aren't you??? Smee 07:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • You are right, I’m responsible for those edits, I'm new and unfamiliar with the protocols but all my edits are accurate with proper references and unbiased. I posted the raw facts of the case. The final Coroner's report doesn't mention anything about insect bites. Carol Wood original report and the review are totally different. But you guys keep insisting on using the original report, that is just wrong. The newer and final coroner’s report takes precedence over the old one.

Bravehartbear 13:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone please correct this sentence of me: In 1995 Lisa McPherson died of a pulmonary embolism while under the care of the Flag Service Organization (FSO), a branch of the Church of Scientology, where she had been taken from the hospital by a group of Scientologists against medical advice, and her body was covered with bruises and insect bites.. It sortof doesn't feel like good english. My point is that 1) she died at FSO, 2) she was taken there against medical advice, 3) her dead body was covered with bruises and insect bites, 4) the hospital was told that she would be cared for. The reason is that Bennetta (the object of this article) was making a big effort to claim that there was "nothing". --Tilman 12:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The final Coroner's report doesn't mention anything about insect bites. Carol Wood original report and the review are totally different. But you guys keep insisting on using the original report, that is just wrong. Bravehartbear 13:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Joan Wood.--Fahrenheit451 00:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be because the medical examiner was not "Carol Wood".
Provide evidence that one report did mention insect bites, and another didn't, and also that this means that there were no insect bites.
The insect bites thing is really well known. Just google for insect bites lisa mcpherson. --Tilman 15:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A well known lie, yes. COFS 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. The google links point to an expert that did recognize insect bites. But hey, feel free to come up with a different expert who will tell that these are whatever else. --Tilman 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, my point is not to turn this into a Lisa article, just to provide the context of Bennetta's activities, who claimed that there was "nothing" when in fact there was "a lot". --Tilman 15:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see you doing that, but I totally agree with what you say. COFS 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right her name is Joan Wood. I don't know how I got the name Carol in my head but anyway Joan Wood changed the cause of dead and the rest to the original report. The new report takes precedense over the old one. Here is the reference: http://www.sptimes.com/News/022300/TampaBay/Church_member_s_death.shtml

Bravehartbear 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say "Ooops, I was wrong about the insect bites". --Tilman 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What was wrong about this case like Bob Minton later admitted is that they were buying witnesses? http://www.sptimes.com/2002/04/20/TampaBay/Church_s_leading_foes.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/05/01/TampaBay/Scientology_foes_cont.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/06/13/TampaBay/Scientology_turncoat_.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/07/07/TampaBay/How_Scientology_turne.shtml
Why it is that Joan Wood changed the Coroner's report so quickly after this was found out? Was she also in the pay roll? So let’s be honest and stop referring to the original Coroner's report that is not factfull.
Bravehartbear 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minton never "admitted is that they were buying witnesses". Please do not misrepresent sources. Minton's allegations have nothing to do with Joan Wood. Plus, as you may know, Minton's accusation did not result in anything legally. And your theory that there is a relationship between Minton changing his opinions and Joan Wood changing the report - is just your theory. She changed her report two years before. Please do not misrepresent sources. --Tilman 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Once again you are incorret!!!
"They will be armed with Minton's affidavit, which gives new detail about how involved Minton was in the wrongful death case from the start, giving Dandar more than $2-million to keep it going and paying witnesses to testify against the church."
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/05/01/TampaBay/Scientology_foes_cont.shtml
Also Minton admited that he was poketing part of the money coming from Europe.
"Minton also testified about two financial arrangements that funneled $800,000 of his money from Europe to the Lisa McPherson Trust, an anti-Scientology organization he founded in Clearwater. Later, Minton pocketed a large portion of the money."
Why he was poketing his own money? Unless of course it wasn't his! Minton was just the front guy for interest groups trying to destroy Scientology. The whole Lisa McPherson case was a charade. They were using the accidental death of a Scientologist to attack Scientology. It was never about Lisa. Lisa was just a tool to get to Scientology. So stop perpetuating the lies and false testimonies of this case.
About Joan Wood report she didn't mention anything about insects bites in her review. And she did basically said "Opps, I mess up the Coroner's report", that why she had to change it. So why keep refering to a Coroner's report that is false. Her assistant that actually did the exam did not saw any insect bites. Bravehartbear 14:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you are citing is a scientology allegation. Scientology claims that Minton had paid witnesses to "say anything". If it was so, Minton would be in jail, and the witnesses too, for perjury. Obviously, nobody is in jail, and the "omnibus hearings" (to get rid of Dandar with the help of Minton's new theories) were a failure for scientology.
You still haven't brought anything about the vanishing insect bites, except your theories. Anyway, at the time Bennetta said that there was "nothing", there were photographs of Lisa dead, with bruises and with insect bites. If a later report had new photographs, i.e. without the bruises and the insect bites, then you might include a new chapter.
Your novel theory about multimillionaire Minton pocketing his own money, but that wasn't actually his, but came from mysterious "interest groups" seems to have been missed by scientology. They kept telling the court that Minton was putting his own money into the case, and had lied about it.
We should concentrate on Bennetta Slaughter and the context of her involvement with her various "Lisa" foundations, not on your own private theories (including the false claim that Joan Wood changed her report AFTER Minton changed sides: Why it is that Joan Wood changed the Coroner's report so quickly after this was found out?). Lets stay with the documented sources, not with theories requiring time travel. --Tilman 15:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not citing Scientologies allegations. I'm citing the Saint Petersburg Times report that clearly states that Minton gave money to buy witnesses;
"They will be armed with Minton's affidavit, which gives new detail about how involved Minton was in the wrongful death case from the start, giving Dandar more than $2-million to keep it going and paying witnesses to testify against the church."
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/05/01/TampaBay/Scientology_foes_cont.shtml
Also Scientology said in 1999:
"more than $2-million Minton has used to help several people involved in lawsuits with Scientology has come from the German government, psychiatric interests or drug companies, all of which have opposed Scientology practices."
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/40134759.html?dids=40134759:40134759&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+28%2C+1999&author=LUCY+MORGAN&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&edition=&startpage=17.A&desc=Scientology%3A+%27We+like+to+make+peace%27+Series%3A+SPECIAL+REPORT
You are right about Wood's report not having anything to do with Minton's testimony. I mess up that one, but she did sudenly changed her report.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/022300/TampaBay/Church_member_s_death.shtml
But to say that Minton’s testimony didn’t resulted in anything is just naive. Minton’s testimony put in question the veracity of Dandar witnesses, putting Dandar’s team in the defensive that ultimately ended in the settlement that ended this charade. I think that Minton testimony was as important as Wood’s review of the coroner’s in the criminal case.Bravehartbear 16:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The SP Times quotes from Minton's affidavit - which the judge didn't believe. And yes, it did not result in anything. As I said, the "omnibus hearing" failed.
The amusing text about the drug companies is just speculation from 1999. Scientology didn't even bother arguing this in court.
What did speed up the settlement was scientology's loss in the jury trial in 2003. [1] But that is just my theory :-) --Tilman 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that because Minton admitted that he committed perjury he was not considered a reliable witness and was not allowed to testify in Scientology’s counter law suit against Dandar. Even thought Scientology didn’t won the counter law suit it did got $4500- in attorney fees proving that it was not a frivolous law suit and that they did had a point. Bravehartbear 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/21/Tampabay/Scientology_wanted_mi.shtml
Scientology did not even get these $4500. Because Dandar had made a settlement offer for $15000, scientology not only got nothing, but had to pay all of Dandar's costs that happened after the settlement offer. [2] This wasn't in the paper, so you don't have to believe me :-)
Of course, this has nothing to do with Bennetta Slaughter. I suggest we concentrate on her. If you just love arguing with scientology critics, I suggest you go to the usenet. --Tilman 18:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ja Ja, so Dandar did try to settle the counter law suit!!! I don't know why would Scientology have to pay Dandar attorney fees when the court ordered Dandar to pay scientology's, that doesn't make sense. Well I'm done debating, all I wanted to prove is that there is another side of this story and I think I achived that. Bravehartbear 19:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you a link: [3]. As I said, you don't have to believe it. Keep believing that scientology actually got $4500 from Dandar (instead of the 2 millions it was asking for :-)). --Tilman 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You gave me a link from a comment Posted by muldrake, why don't you give me a link from a comment posted my Micky Mouse. Is just as good. :-) Bravehartbear 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

undue weight

[edit]

Although almost every sentence in the Lisa McPherson section is indeed sourced, it's undue weight to have Bennetta Slaughter's bio article almost completely dominated by this matter. If someone else would like to take a crack at shortening it down to just the most relevant sentences, please do before I take a weed-whacker to the whole thing. wikipediatrix 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further on Undue Weight, Also Incorrect Information

[edit]

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia. I work doing internet marketing. I am setting up a website for Bennetta Slaughter's new company, and I noticed that her Wikipedia article has only old and incorrect information on it.

Incorrect Information: Bennetta Slaughter lives in Memphis, and is not a member of any boards or groups in Clearwater Florida (though she was during the 1990s). She ceased working for Applied Scholastics Interational 2 years ago, and the CEO there now is Mr Craig Barton.

Bennetta Slaughter is running a marketing and advertising company in Memphis TN currently.

I would like to correct the Wikipedia entry so that it correctly reflects the life and activities of the person being described.

Undue Weight Currently her entry is completely dominated by events from 10 years ago, that while unfortunate and sensational, do not in any way accurately reflect the living person today. Obviously the information that describes those events should remain, though in an abbreviated form. However Bennetta Slaughter is very known in the United States Insurance Industry as the person who best represents Agent Media Corporation, which was the first company to provide representative recruitment services to Insurance Carriers and their subsiduaries. As a self made multi-millionaire who created a completely new niche, a paragraph should also be included to describe this.

If there is any problem with me doing these edits please let me know. A lot of the information I cover above can be found on Bennetta Slaughter's personal blog- wwww.bennettaslaughterblog.com.

19:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynekiwi (talk • contribs)

Upcoming Edit

[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia but I have familiarized myself with all appropriate material regarding COI and editing of entries, and I want to make sure anyone interested in this entry knows that I am going to make some extremely conservative edits to this entry. These edits will only do two things - 1) remove any unsourced statements (as there are several that are noted as being sourced, but the links are dead). 2) Correctly state the subject occupation and group memberships, as given by her personally on her blog (the existing information is incorrect). These edits will 100% follow NPV and any new information will be correctly coursed per Wikipedia sourcing policies for BLP (where citing a living persons own blog for information such as occupation and affiliations is permissible). If there are any objections to me making these edits please let me know. My original post was over a week ago and no specific problems with these edits has been raised, but I wanted to give it a few more days to ensure that there was no problem to these upcoming changes.Waynekiwi (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlinks is not a reason to remove info. It is likely the info is still verifiable to the citations, without a link being necessary. Cirt (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bennetta Slaughter/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*18 citations, no images. Smee 09:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Last edited at 09:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bennetta Slaughter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bennetta_Slaughter&oldid=1245530672"