Jump to content

Talk:Mark Rathbun/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Marty Rathbun is still listed as executive in this website

http://www.foundingchurchdc.org/dc/profiles.htm

and here: http://www.dianeticsscientology.nl/pers.asp - added by Barbara Schwarz from IP 172.184.65.167 at 00:42, 29 December 2005

It appears that those links haven't been updated yet. If you click on the name Marty Rathbun, the links that they point to as reference have been removed. You don't honestly claim that you think that Marty Rathbun is still the Inspector General of RTC? Still? Is their some reason why we shouldn't believe the RTC's own web pages? Vivaldi 14:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Rumours of death

What about these rumours on ARS about his death? [1] Anything to take seriously or worth mentioning in the article? (Entheta 21:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

They are nothing to put in an encyclopedia article. Vivaldi 17:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is Warren McShane a dead link?

There was a wikipedia article on him a couple of weeks ago, and it seems to be gone now. Is there a clambot with access to Wikipedia's servers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)

I think you're thinking of Gerry Armstrong. Without going into details, there was an article on Gerry but it wasn't the content that got it deleted, but legal issues involving the primary-if-not-sole contributor. So far as I know, Warren McShane has never had an article, though one would be a good idea. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't believe there was ever an article about Warren McShane on Wikipedia. Google never found it, although it does show that he is mentioned in the Xenu article. Vivaldi 06:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun affidavit

It was easy to find a better source than the newsgroup link, here it is: DECLARATION OF MARK C. RATHBUN, with the scanned signature. But since it's not determined whether or not it is relevant to the article, I will not add it to the article. Raymond Hill 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

... Great minds think alike. =D -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What was the context of the affidavit? Was it submitted to the courts in the Gerry Armstrong v. Scientology court case? If so then the court document would be an acceptable source. I haven't read the whole thing so I am not sure what information that the document provides that is relevant to an encyclopedia article about Rathbun, but if there is any relevant information, then this affidavit should be acceptable. Vivaldi (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears that it was submitted in the appeal to that case -- the affidavit makes reference to "the trial court" and "Judge Breckenridge" accepting Armstrong's representations. There's some information there which could be relevant to other articles, mostly detailing what a good game Hubbard talked about being honest and ethical and truthful (and I like the bit where Rathbun actually tries to claim that "fair game" is a "direct reference" to being at the mercy of the "barbaric" "lay justice proceedings" of the non-Scientological parts of the world.) For Mark Rathbun, it only supports that he was at that time (8-13-1991) President of the Religious Technology Center and Inspector General for Ethics (or at least that at that time, Scientology was letting him claim those positions in court documents!) Since we don't have any references supporting that now, I suppose the affidavit would be preferable to nothing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There is still a web archive of the RTC pages showing that Marty was still listed as the IG of RTC as late as 1 year ago. This archive can be removed at any time, so its still good to have the court documents. Vivaldi (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Rathbun's affidavit

MartinaVelvet (talk · contribs) added[2] an external link to a Google Groups (Usenet) posting which claims to be an affidavit by Rathbun. Davidstrauss mentioned that the link verged on reliability problems. However, a closer look shows that the poster is or claims to be Barbara Schwarz -- which means it does not "verge" on reliability problems, it leaps straight in with both boots.

However, I tried Googling sections from the text, to see if it had ever been reproduced by a site we could regard as more reliable. The irony? The only one hosting it is Gerry Armstrong, the very person that Rathbun is accusing in the affidavit of making "outrageous accusations" and "twisting and perverting the facts".

Even assuming we managed to overcome the inconsistency of saying "we should trust the reliability of Gerry Armstrong in order to link to a statement that impugns the reliability of Gerry Armstrong", there's also the issue which, IMHO, makes it pretty moot: it doesn't have much to do with Marty Rathbun, except being his words. He must've said a lot of things during his time with the CoS; I don't really see how this is more illuminating on the subject of Rathbun himself than others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that while Marty indeed probably said many words over the last 25 years -- any that did exist on Church of Scientology servers have been systematically erased from the internet since Marty's mysterious disappearance. There may come a time when this affidavit is one of the few reliable sources that even mentions his name at all. Vivaldi (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This document is part of court case Case No. B038975 (verifiable). I read somewhat the content, and mostly Mark C. Rathbun disputes Gerry Amstrong's negative views about Hubbard writings (fair game, etc.) For the current article, there are these claims about himself (can this be used as cites?):
«I am the President of the Religious Technology Center»,
«I also hold the ecclesiastical position of Inspector General for Ethics»
«My life is dedicated to the support and preservation of the Scientology religion and its scripture,».
Also, examples of interesting statements to maybe be used elsewhere in the Scientology series (significant since from a then top-ranking official):
«Compared to Scientology ethics and justice procedures, lay justice proceedings are, in fact, barbaric.»,
«the Scientology scriptures themselves are comprised of over 50 million words» (this contradicts other sources, even CoS ones I think),
«Scientologists, as a group, are the most ethical people in the world today. In fact, the ethical standards which they maintain are far and above those of any other group.», etc. -- Raymond Hill 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Barbara's theories

I really don't think that half the article should be taken up by this. Henry Kissinger, William F. Buckley, Jr., and many other people are also the objects of conspiracy theories; but half of their articles are not taken up detailing them. I will not do any more editing on this article. Do what you like. But IMO you would score more points against the CoS, if that is your object, by just giving the facts about Mr. Rathbun without sending the reader off in another direction altogether. Wishing you the best. The real Steve Dufour 16:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW Is Barbara accusing Mark of bigamy? If so this would clearly be a violation of WP policy. Steve Dufour 16:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy against "claim"

Here is where it can be found: Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Steve Dufour 04:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reported at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

This article has been reported at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mark Rathbun by Steve Dufour, who claims that "[Schwarz] seems to be saying that [Rathbun] is a bigamist." I have already responded, noting that Dufour is falsely presenting his own conclusions, drawn by combining what he believes about Rathbun's marital status with what Schwarz believes about Rathbun's marital status, as what "she seems to be saying". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know him personally. However the article says he was married to a woman named Anne. If what Barbara says is true and he was married to her as well that would make him a bigamist. Steve Dufour 06:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I quote from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mark Rathbun: "Only if one holds both beliefs would bigamy be implied, and Mr. Dufour has not presented any evidence whatsoever to indicate there is anyone out there holding both beliefs." Are you now prepared to offer evidence on this point, Mr. Dufour? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
If his marriage to Anne is a fact, as the article says, and he is also married to Barbara then he would be a bigamist. Steve Dufour 16:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
And if you inserted that combination of what you believe with what Barbara believes in the article and falsely claimed that it is what Barbara believes you would be committing original research. I don't see why you think it is acceptable to make a false report based on the same original research just because it is in the Wikipedia namespace rather than article namespace; what gives you the impression that it is? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Barbara says that her Marty was never married to anyone else. The two stories are mutually exclusive. AndroidCat 04:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the "two stories" should be given equal space in the article? Steve Dufour 06:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do I think you made a knowingly false report? Yes I do. You ask "What is wrong with having the article mentioned on the notice board? Do you not want people to notice it?" and this is about as honest as any fly-by-night Viagra spammer asking "What is wrong with having people know that my product is for sale? Do you not want people to know where they can purchase medicine?" and dodging the fact that his means of bringing this to people's attention is prohibited and unethical. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the article so that it was clear that bigamy was not implied. I hope this is a fair representation of Barbara's views. Steve Dufour 20:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly a more fair representation than the claim she was making accusations of bigamy, so I'm not going to fight it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
But I will, see [3] Barbara has a different theory. But she has never said that "she, not Anne". --Tilman 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information Tilman. In that case I think someone should rewrite the sentence (if you don't want to take Barbara's theories out altogether that is) so that it reflects her view that there are really two "Mark Rathbuns", one married to Anne Rathbun and one married to Barbara. Steve Dufour 16:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no one else is volunteering I will make a small change. Steve Dufour 14:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sentence removed

The Director of Media Relations for the Church of Scientology said about Ms. Schwarz, "We're clueless about this person and obviously she is delusional about Mr. Rathbun and she needs help. We're sorry for her."[1]

This is not about Mr Rathbun at all. It is about Ms Schwarz and can be found in her article. I don't see any reason to include it here. Steve Dufour 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But its Rathbun that Schwarz is searching for. So keep the sentence. --Tilman 17:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If the purpose of this article is to attack another person then I think the whole article should be deleted. Steve Dufour 20:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
And so are the articles about Ted Bundy and George W. Bush. You've brought this "argument" before already. --Tilman 22:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If a sentence attacking and insulting Barbara were to be added to one of those articles I would remove it. I am only asking for one sentence to be removed from this article. A sentence which has nothing to do with the subject of the article. I don't want to ask WP to delete the whole article. Steve Dufour 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. AndroidCat 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
A nomination for deletion might attract attention to Rathbun as a missing person. So it might be a good thing. Steve Dufour 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You've made this argument elsewhere already.
The sentence is on-topic, it does not attack Barbara or Marty, and even you let it stay for months. Until the 22nd, when you suddenly realized you "must" delete it. --Tilman 07:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to see the article on Mark deleted, just the sentence which insults Barbara. If someone is interested in that they can click over to her article and read it there. Steve Dufour 13:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it again - I think I'll stay neutral about this and won't revert the deletion myself next time. --Tilman 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I went too far in threatening to delete the whole article. I do think the whole thing about Barbara distracts from the real story however. Steve Dufour 17:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW It seems that no one else here cares to express an opinion. Or it might be that they think we two wogs are too low on the vibrational scale to understand their elevated discourse. Wishing you well as always. the real Steve Dufour 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think these are the only two options worth presenting as possibilities, Steve? I can think of several that are more plausible and less offensive than your hypothesis that some ill-defined "they" thinks you are "low on the vibrational [sic] scale". -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Did I spell "vibrational" wrong? Steve Dufour 06:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Your spelling is not what makes your sentence unclear. I presume you are not violating WP:CIVIL by arbitrarily accusing of racism all your fellow editors who failed to snap to in rendering an opinion -- so presumably when you refer to "we two wogs" you are referring to the Scientology use of the term (the most relevant in this context, of course). However, the scale that Scientologists use to evaluate who is "too low" to respond appropriately to elevated discourse is the "tone scale"; I have never heard it being referred to as "the vibrational scale". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought tone and vibration meant the same thing. It really should be called the tonal scale. Anyway I was joking with Tilman, who is not a Scientologist. Steve Dufour 07:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW I checked out the article on tone scale and found out that sympathy is considered very low on it. Steve Dufour 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When the Scientology official said she was sorry for Barbara was she low in the tone scale? Steve Dufour 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how that question is relevant to the writing of this article. That is, after all, the purpose of this talk page. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing specifically. However, I do think that having sympathy for others makes a person a better, and more effective, writer. Steve Dufour 20:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you're talking about a Scientology official whose writing is not in any way relevant to this article, you are basically responding to a request to stay on the subject by immediately going even more drastically off-topic. I do not think such behavior is CIVIL. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You asked about the writing of this article. In my opinion the writing of this article would be improved if more sympathy was shown toward Mark, Anne, Barbara, and even the unnamed Scientology spokesperson. Steve Dufour 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting opinion, but so abstract as to have almost no relevance to the writing of the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the sentence should be included. It strikes me as quite relevant to Rathbun and Schwarz - removing is a little akin to discussing Big Tobacco and not mentioning any of their defenses or the party line - official statements are very much worth quoting, both for completeness, referencing, and NPOV. --Gwern (contribs) 22:07 23 January 2007 (GMT)

The sentence can be found on Barbara's article. In my opinion Mark's would make a much more powerful anti-Scientology statement if you took off everything about Barbara and left people wondering what happened to Mark. As it is you send them off in another direction. Steve Dufour 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbara's, Tilman's, and Mark's articles should all be deleted

By the real standards of WP notability Barbara's, Tilman's, and Mark's articles should all be deleted. Steve Dufour 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, please. Even by your standards that's hardly plausible. Delete the article for the man who used to be one of the three most powerful executives in Scientology? It's not like he actually stopped being notable the minute Scientology decided to make him a non-person. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Merely having a job in an organization is not notable enough for a WP article, by WP's expressed standards. However I don't want to see this article removed because having it here might help him be found. Steve Dufour 19:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right - just having a job is not enough for an article. However, having a high-ranking job in a very famous organisation DOES make one notable enough for an article. Otherwise Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and a whole host of other very famous, very notable individuals won't have articles. Dave420 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make a small change to avoid hurting Barbara's feelings. If you like I could nominate the article for deletion. This would have two advantages. It would give Mark's story and picture more exposure and it would open up the chance for a new article to be written which would tell the story of Mark and leave out Barbara. Please let me know how you feel. Thanks. Steve Dufour 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve, this isn't about doing a favour to Barbara (nor is it to hurt her). She doesn't like the article anyway. If you want to do something nice to Barbara, send her a cake or whatever she likes, as a gift in the mail. What you're doing currently is more about doing yourself a favour, because you somehow feel guilty towards Barbara for being a "wikipiggi" (as she calls it) editor.
Barbara hasn't made a statement about Anne Rathbun, at least not in her lawsuits. So it shouldn't be mentioned. --Tilman 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, non reliable sources and EL's removed

Please refer to WP:BLP. BabyDweezil 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tilman's comment in the edit summary did not read like a personal attack, rather a polite informative suggestion. Smee 22:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Tilman's reinserting material that violates WP:BLP, and using insulting language as an explanation. BabyDweezil
Again - please inform yourself about the sources that you claim are not reputable. Andreas Heldal-Lund is a well-known scientology expert, and so is Kady O'Malley. She is also a journalist. And I see that you reinserted the "claims", despite that I politely pointed you to WP:WTA. --Tilman 22:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
1. they are not reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:BLP. 2. I used "claims" in its proper connotation--when you file a lawsuit etc, you make "claims" which is what Schwarz did. So stop your silly insuts about me informing myself, when you apparently can't see beyond your own WP:COI over these subjects to even read what anybody is writing. BabyDweezil 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
1) Just because you "claim" that these aren't reliable sources does not make them so. 2) Some of the "claims" were made in court, and some outside court. Which is why the word should rather not be used before this is clarified. --Tilman 07:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
User:BabyDweezil, again, please stop your personal attacks against other editors. Comment on the content that you are concerned about, not the contributors. Thanks. Smee 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Relevant guidelines explaining removal of non-WP:RS sources

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[2]

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."[3]

Reliable sources

Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

These are all relevant to the references and EL's that were removed, and as it clearly states, they should not be put back in the article. BabyDweezil 06:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Just copying a policy in the discussion page is not an argument. --Tilman 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The material removed falls within these guidelines--poorly sourced, negative material. BabyDweezil 08:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"It is, because it is" is not an argument. I did explain why it is properly sourced. You did not dispute this. Thus this matter is settled. But since I already did three reverts, someone else will have to. --Tilman 09:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I looked through the referenced citations in question and they do appear to be both factually accurate and very highly sourced. Smee 09:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Non-notablity

Merely having a job in an organization, no matter how important that job and how important some people imagine the organization, does not make a person notable on WP. Have there been any news stories about Mark or books written about him? And as for his "disappearance".... That might well turn out to be notable. However it does not seem so yet. Has it been reported in the news media? As it is the article seems to invite speculation that something is wrong, that a crime might have been committed against him. If that is true then the place to go would be the police or the FBI, or even "Unsolved Mysteries". However, it is not WP's business right now. Steve Dufour 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point - the same thing occurred to me while I was tidying up the article. I'd like to see some independent corroboration of Rathbun's notability. -- ChrisO 18:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Him being a top scientology guy makes him notable. He has also acted as spokesperson. Plus, Google for him. --Tilman 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
He appeared prominently half-a-dozen or more times in coverage of Scientology issues in the New York Times; I've added cited content drawn from two. Robertissimo 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. So far the article has had no mainstream sources. Steve Dufour 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good work Robertissimo; and thanks, Steve, for flagging up the issue. -- ChrisO 20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, the article is much better than it was a few weeks ago. Steve Dufour 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to a small change in the Current section? As it is it almost gives me the impression he was liquidated and disposed of never to be seen again;To date, neither the RTC nor any other Scientology official or organization has made any announcement about Rathbun's status.. Rather than say his status is unknown, I would prefer to see something like since his departure/expulsion/whatever from the CoS, Mr. Rathbun appears to have embraced a private life. Once he was out of the CoS, they really don't have to keep tabs on him. Anynobody 22:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's missing the point, to be honest. The most peculiar thing about this affair is not that Rathbun has apparently disappeared without trace - it's that nobody seems to know what's happened to the post, i.e. who if anybody is currently serving as Inspector General of the RTC. It's one of the most important posts in Scientology ("the final arbiter of orthodoxy" [4]), yet nobody outside the RTC leadership seems to know who's doing it. The whole situation is utterly bizarre. -- ChrisO 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree that it's notable that the position appears to have vanished too, that should be mentioned on the Scientology page and probably is suitable here too. I'm just saying since this article is a biography about Mark Rathbun, we should mention that his "disappearance" should be explained in a neutral manner. Again, I think what happened to his position is notable but this article is about him not his job Scientology. Anynobody 04:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Article is impotent

As a first-time visitor to this page and knowing nothing about this person I must say that the posting told me nothing about what seems most relevant -- his whereabouts. The content here seems sanitized to the point of absurdity.

If you can find a reliable source which tells where he is please let us know, ASAP. Thanks. Steve Dufour 06:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rathbun in the media

Most of these are minor mentions, so I'll leave them here rather than dumping them in the article. AndroidCat (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I imagine that Rathbun is notable enough. I would like to make this into a nice article that is compliant with WP:BLP. This is not about pro- an anti-Scientology, simply report what is in RS. The digging into primary sources on the Snow White thing on David Gaiman (another WP:COAT as he was not charged with anything) and this WP:OR "Where's Marty" ARS game here are unacceptable for this project. The DeMoss article ended up being a decent piece and there is no reason this cannot be the same. Thanks for your help. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Current status

I came here looking to see whether there was any update on whether Rathburn was:

a) living happily in hiding
b) murdered and waiting to be found
c) murdered and never to be found (but evidence of the murder found)
d) recently found/interviewed/spotted selling burgers in Texas

Funnily enough no mention of his status. I figured that if that's what I was looking for, that's what other people are looking for, so I added a paragraph indicating that option "e" was it: (body) not yet found.

--Psud (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=27730


According to bixbear aka Actor and former Scientologist Jason Beghe:

Very Happy GREAT NEWS! Very Happy

I spoke with several VERY RELIABLE sources this weekend who say they are in contact with Marty Rathbun. He is very much alive and very happy! Apparently, he finally left for good due to his disgust with DM's treatment of staff.

Marty is a great guy, a smart guy and a tough guy. Even if he isn't nessasarily on 'our team', we are certainly fortunate that he is not on 'their team'. I applaud his courage and integrity for leaving and wish him all the best with the rest of what I hope is a very long, rewarding life.....

--jcurious (talk) 4:07 June 4 2008 (UTC)

Good for him! However, that still isn't a WP:RS, and under WP:BLP rules, shouldn't be posted even to the talk page of the article. AndroidCat (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The article states, A) His whereabouts are unknown. B) He's living in Texas. Well? Which one is it?Orsoni (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If the one living in Texas, writing for We The People, is the same Mark Rathburn, then - given that this information is more recent - I believe it is okay to remove the note that his whereabouts are unknown.--66.182.223.201 (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The source cited for the proposition that he is living in Texas does not support this proposition. It merely supports the proposition that a person sharing the same name is living in Texas. Muldrake (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Per comment by Muldrake (talk · contribs) and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

An IP user, 74.44.48.240 (talk · contribs), has repeatedly added this info back into the article. It should not go into the article without a cite to a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source, per above discussion. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Was able to find some additional blog postings, [5], [6], but so far searches haven't yielded much in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the Scientology Mark C. Rathbun living in Texas. He writes of Hubbard on his blog. His picture was put in the "We The People" website, and the Obama web site. The editor of the newspaper said in an email that this was the Scientology Mark C. Rathbun. Proof is all over the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. 67.65.219.126 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/markrathbun 67.65.219.126 (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


Blindness ruled when this section was put in. I removed it. The "Current" section is pure OR with no RS writing about it. Tagged. Shutterbug (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Not true. There is mounds of evidence that this is true. I am wondering why you dont think there is.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/b753badf4aa79c89?hl=en&q=mark+%22marty%22+rathbun+texas#a22eb98e6a05c15d 67.65.219.126 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

ACHIEVE YOUR OBJECTIVES

Expert consultation and services toward goal achievement. 30 years expertise in strategic planning and tactical execution ... » 9.18.2007 / Mark rathbun (Ingleside, TX) Tel: 361-249-6800 Send e-mail

ACHIEVE YOUR OBJECTIVES

Expert consultation and services toward goal achievement. 30 years expertise in strategic planning and tactical execution in the fields of communications, public relations, legal affairs, interaction with government entities, press relations, conflict resolution and more.

9.18.2007 / Mark rathbun (Ingleside, Texas) Tel: 361-249-6800 Send e-mail

http://www.domesticsale.com/Classifieds/152192.html

http://www.domesticsale.com/Classifieds/Texas/Business/Consulting/

http://mobile.domesticsale.com/Classifieds/Business/Consulting/3.html 67.65.219.126 (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun writes:

I write for a progressive populist publication, historical publications, and I write meaningful screenplays.

Education/Experience: 2 years college, 25 years studying and writing

www.associatedcontent.com/user/75039/mark_rathbun.html

Interpersonal relationships can seem like a very complex subject at times. Yet, it is relationships that make a family, a group, a town, state, nation and civilization. Relationships left to sour can cause untold expense and upset. Philosopher L. Ron Hubbard developed a simple formula for strengthening, improving and repairing relationships that you might find of some practical use.

www.associatedcontent.com/article/277790/simple_ways_for_improving_relationships.html?cat=41

67.65.219.126 (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

An email exchange with then Editor Kelley of "We The People":

Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_4593_673241.1213310986150" References: <8ce790af0d52f278285a3b85909c2bed@wethepeoplenews.ccppc.org>

Forwarded message ----------

From: <> Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:14 PM Subject: Copy of: Mark Rathbun To: xxxx


The following is a copy of the message you sent to John M. Kelley via We The People News

This is an enquiry e-mail via http://wethepeoplenews.ccppc.org/mambo from: 

<XXXX@gmail.com>

Although I don't expect to get an answer to this question, I will ask it nonetheless: Is your new hire "the" Mark (Marty) C. Rathbun, formerly a high-ranking officer within the evil cult of greed known as the Church of Scientology?

If not, please be aware that he is being represented as such on Wikipedia's entry for Mark Rathbun of Scientology infamy.

If so, please congratulate Mr. Rathbun on finally escaping the clutches of the asthmatic dwarf and the nefarious organization.

Thanks.

[The reply from the Editor, Kelley]:

Received: from [75.16.112.79] by web81807.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:53:52 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/975.41 YahooMailWebService/0.7.185

Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:53:52 -0700 (PDT) From: John Kelley <greatblueheron777@yahoo.com> Subject: Mark Rathbun To: XXXX

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1891200962-1213217632=:66275" Message-ID: <822369.66275.qm@web81807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--0-1891200962-1213217632=:66275 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

thanks Billy, its the same guy except he is one hell of an investigative reporter and has been promoted to news director john 67.65.219.126 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Spokesman's quotes

I would suggest the following content does not really add anything to this BLP; these are just statements he made in his official capacity as spokesman:

As a Scientology spokesman, Rathbun commented to the same newspaper on the involvement of celebrities in Scientology, saying that "Scientology works for these people, and they just want to give to others what works for them. We don't give them a badge and send them out. They do it on their own."[6] When discussing reluctance among some established churches to collaborate with Scientology under the umbrella of an interfaith organization, he was also quoted as saying that "Bigotry is born out of ignorance."[6]

Views? Jayen466 22:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder in special report on Scientology and David Miscavige

First article in series
Overall report page for multiple articles

Sources to be included in this article. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Query

When did Mark leave the C of S? I suggest this be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.46.109 (talk • contribs)

Marty Rathbun did leave the Church of Scientology, and I believe he's now what's considered an "indie scientologist". I think he fell out of love with the system Miscavige had created but still held some faith. CS started to make him an unperson, so there doesn't seem to be a lot to go on, but he's now speaking out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.139.191 (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Interview on CBC

Interesting source of info. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • This has some info. about starting Scientology and his ex-wife Anne. CNN lists her last name as Anne Joasem.

Rathbun and Rinder attempt to contact Rinder's son

Source, to add to this article at some point later on. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Should also add the AC360 report:

In March 2010, Rathbun again confirmed allegations of abuse within Scientology to CNN's Anderson Cooper on AC360.[4] The allegations were also reported The New York Times, ABC's Nightline, and NBC's Today.[5]

Blog hacked info

The Editor-in-Chief of The Village Voice is a WP:RS source for this info. Please, do not remove it again. -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Secrets of Scientology

The Sunday Times has an article about Rathbun's involvement in the documentary, Secrets of Scientology. In it the documentary claims that private auditing sessions are secretly recorded, including ones with secrets about Tom Cruise.[6] The article is restricted to Sunday Times readers who are registered. Here's the relevant part:

The Headley’s claim that “auditing” – the Scientology confessional – was spied on routinely. Marc says: “I installed over 100 rooms that had two cameras and a microphone in them where people would get auditing. In most cases, it’s inside of a smoke detector or a picture frame, pinhole cameras.”

Marty Rathbun, who like Rinder is now an independent Scientologist, used to audit the stars and says: “There is a specific VIP room for all the A-listers – John Travolta, Tom Cruise. And I audited Tom Cruise there. There is a shelf in there that has a false glass mirror panel – behind it there is a video camera.”

Claire Headley told me that she saw a tape of Cruise being audited by Rathbun: “Marty, sitting in the chair, the e-meter [an electrical gadget used in auditing] and on the opposite side of the table Tom Cruise, holding the cans [electrodes connected to the e-meter]. I saw those videos.” Did Cruise talk about personal things? “Absolutely.” Things that Cruise would not want people to know? “Absolutely.”

The church says secrets are scrosant, but it does film auditing confessionals for training and monitoring; it adds that filming is not done secretly and it has been announced publicly.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MNCLarke (talk • contribs)

Thanks very much, will research this, and look into it further. A very good WP:RS secondary source. -- Cirt (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

EX-Scientologist

Mark Rathburn, at least from the blog that is listed as a source, does NOT say that he is an independent Scientologist. It says he 'was' a scientologist which means he should be referred to as an EX-scientologist. Mylittlezach (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"nucleus of a group of Independent Scientologists"

Hi,

The article Scientology currently says: "more recently, high-profile defectors Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder have formed the nucleus of a group of Independent Scientologists".

I marked it is "clarify" and explained this request on Talk:Scientology. Can anyone help with this, please? Thank you. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Independent article

I don't have time to work on it myself, but other interested editors might want to consider whether this article would be useful here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing Issues

Blogs are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Please read WP:RS for more information.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If blogs are considered unreliable sources on Wikipedia, why is Mark Rathbun's blog listed as a website (www.markrathbun.wordpress.com)? Is there a bias here?Burntsierra754 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

His website is listed as an external reference. It is not used to make any statements likely to be challegned. There are other problems with blogs, but generally you can use a blog written by a biography subject if they are used for basic information that is unlikely to be challeged.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The village voice blog is used as a reference in the "Tom Cruise confessional files" section. Shall we remove this section then? I was citing the same blog in order to validate the edit that indicates Mark Rathbun is unemployed. If the Village Voice is acceptable as a reference in this section, it should be accepted in the bio box as well. Or we just remove every piece of information that is sourced from this blog.Burntsierra754 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, how is this vandalism when it complies with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_succeeding#Timeliness_and_readability? It is the truth that Rathbun is currently unemployed.Burntsierra754 (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism is quite different than sourcing issues. Adding penis to an article is an example of vandalism. You bring up a valid point. Much the VV reference you use may not be valid. I'll examine that later. However your desire to add the fact that Rathbun is currently unemployed does not appear to be referenced in source you provide. Your edit quite possibly violates our policy on WP:BLP. As for what is true/false, you may be shocked to find that Wikipedia does not care. What we do care about is that facts in an article are reliably sourced. Please see WP:NOTTRUTH.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi - Unemployed is not an occupation - and as such does not belong in the infobox - we just leave that box blank or add their most notable employ - if the fact that they are not working at the present time - is well cited and notable then add it as content in the body of the article - that citation provided - the village voice blog does nowhere near reach that standard - Youreallycan 20:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing details

A lot of key information is missing from this article. We need to know when he became Inspector General and what posts he held before that. Laval (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Final sentence of intro

The final sentence of the intro reads, "Rathbun left the Church of Scientology in 2004 and is now an independent Scientologist." It should probably read more like, "Rathbun left the Church of Scientology in 2004 and has become one of the most outspoken critics of the organization and the ecclesiastical leadership of David Miscavige. Since his departure, he has continued to practice Scientology independently of the church and has authored several books about Scientology and his views on how to reform it."

Any comment on this, or suggestions on improvement? It should, of course, be very well sourced. Laval (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mark Rathbun/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.

*10 citations, could use an image. Smee 05:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 05:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2016

Add a reference to the page 'My Scientology Movie' under 'media appearance' Jalkema (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Rathbun. 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) 23:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mark Rathbun. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Rathbun. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Chronological order

The section "Departure from the Church of Scientology" should be moved above the Tom Cruise section, to put the events in chronological order and to make the Tom Cruise section make more sense. As it is ordered now, it is confusing to read why Rathbun released the Tom Cruise info, since it has not yet been mentioned that he left Scientology.

Marty has recently taken Scientology's side on some issues. Odd turn of events should be reflected here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E084:5700:FC41:5283:1132:F0F6 (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Changed back to Scientology's side

In Spring of 2017, Marty Rathbun began posting videos critical os Scientology's opponents, a reversal of his previous position.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E084:5700:A87B:6AA5:B435:C7A3 (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Rathbun. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

ATTENTION. MARTY RATHBUN HAS TURNED AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY'S OPPONENTS. SHOULD BE REFLECTED ON THIS PAGE. Apologies if this flouts wiki standards.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Rathbun. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

The website listed for Marty is without a doubt incorrect and obviously changed by the Church of Scientology in another attempt to discredit him. Please remove that website. Loveapaw (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2018

Please add the following information in the section on My Scientology Movie:

After the filming of My Scientology Movie, Rathbun slammed Theroux for "morally bankrupt tactics" in his producing the documentary, and withdrew his support from its promotion.[8] Rathbun claimed that Theroux deliberately attempted to provoke the Scientologists filmed for the film, and over-dramatised the scenes recreating alleged abuses that had taken place in the Church.[9] Huashang (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fish+Karate 12:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2018

Change the misspelled last name of the subject of this article from Rathbone to Rathbun in the sentence about the article by Jezebel.38.72.104.100 (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC) 38.72.104.100 (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Return to Scientology?

Did Rathbun return to the Church of Scientology after the release of the Theroux documentary? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Smith, Christopher (2003-05-11). "S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System". The Salt Lake Tribune. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Jimbo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006
  4. ^ "Scientology: A History of Violence". AC360. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
  5. ^ "Scientology run-ins bring warnings‎". St. Petersburg Times. April 28, 2010. Retrieved 2010-04-30.
  6. ^ [www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Review/article403573.ece "Mr Shouty and and Cruise: The Rematch"]. Sunday Times series. September 26, 2010. Retrieved 2010-09-25. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  7. ^ https://markrathbun.blog
  8. ^ Carroll, Rory. "Subject of Scientology film: Louis Theroux used 'morally bankrupt tactics'". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 October 2018.
  9. ^ Rathbun, Marty. "Louris Theroux's Scientology Movie". Marty Rathbun's Blog. Retrieved 1 October 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Rathbun/Archive_1&oldid=1136991973"