Talk:Noisy investigation

Hubbard's words on "noisy investigation" may be worth adding to the article: "When we investigate we do so noisily always. And usually mere investigation damps out the trouble even when we discover no really pertinent facts ... Remember, intelligence we get with a whisper. Investigation we do with a yell. Always ..." [1] -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect lead sentence?

This article starts "When a person has been labelled Fair Game. . .", but as I understand it, no one has been labelled "Fair Game" by Scientology since 1968. There is evidence that Scientologists still practice the same "Fair Game" practice without the label, but the sentence implies people are still labelled as such, which is incorrect. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The term is used in a document dated 1989 and published on Operation Clambake [2] ... While it may have exited official and public use, there is no reason to believe internal use has stopped, at any time. --User:Login 19:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC

Libel?

As a point of interest, couldn't these "Noisy investigations" leave the perpetrators open to an action for slander of libel? --David.Mestel 18:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what is said and where they said it. Different countries and different states have different rules about libel and slander. Vivaldi (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This weaselly sentence needs a proper citation

From the article as it exists on 4/21/06: Some Scientologists claim that their policy of "Fair Game" is no longer in effect, but critics of the Church maintain that whether the rule is still written in Scientology policy or not, the policy is still adhered to today.. I added a {{Fact}} tag to this claim because the source that was given did not say what was written here. Also this sentence uses weasel words like "Scientologists claim..." and "critics claim...". Which Scientologists claim that Fair Game is not in effect? Which critics of the church maintain that the policy is still adhered to? Each of these things needs to be properly cited. I'm certain that reliable sources can be found for both claims (and the Scientologists claim might even have a web page on their own servers somewhere). But until it is properly sourced we should leave this citation needed tag. Vivaldi (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Fair game (Scientology)

I believe that this topic does not require its own page. What do people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spidern (talk • contribs) .

Oppose merge. Has received significant discussion in multiple sources and merits its own article. Cirt (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs a serious going over

I came across this page through links on the various Scientology and related articles. I am extremely surprised that an article on such a prominent subject (even though it is a 'sub article' of sorts) has not had any input for a number of years. This has the potential to be an excellent article if the time were taken over it. BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 20:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I did a little cleanup on the article today. I think the article could use some of the examples of "loud following harassment" that is covered a bit in the Fair game (Scientology) article about Sweeney/Panorama. And the in-person harassment of Rathbun and the squirrel busters. Those are specific examples of how a noisy investigation plays out in real life. Also a bit from Mike Rinder § Office of Special Affairs.

If the article can't be expanded much, then "noisy investigation" might fit as a section (a practice) in either the Office of Special Affairs or Fair game (Scientology) articles.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)