Talk:Harry Palmer (Avatar)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Objections from Harry Palmer to this article

From WP:ANI:

Strange email
I'm sorry if I've put this in wrong place, but I really didn't know where else it was supposed to go. I just got an email about this page, which I unblanked. It says:
Chanel
My name is Harry Palmer and I just won a 450,000.00 suit against the person who wrote the libelous, incorrect bio on Wikipedia.
see here :http://www.avatarepc.com/sitrep1.html
Now this is the second time I've asked you to take it down. Please comply.
Harry Palmer
CEO
Star's Edge, Inc.
I don't know what he means by "this is the second time I've asked you to take it down." I've never had contact with him prior to today. I'm not sure what to do.--Shanel 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
He probably just used an "email this user" link. Ignore the trolls. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This is Harry Palmer (Avatar) a scientologist who runs his own "self help" organization licensed under the CoS. I've got friends who've had run ins with him based on public posts online. You will note his bio page here on Wiki has no posts to the discussion page, so if he's complained about his bio, its not anywhere anyone would have seen it or anywhere someone would have been able to do something about it. Suggest someone emails him and gets a list of "exactly whats wrong" with his bio, so we can NPOV the article.  ALKIVAR™ 08:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, no, it's not licensed, quite the opposite - it's a breakaway from the CoS - see Free Zone and Category:Free Zone. The CoS hate their schisms with a passion - see Fair Game (Scientology).
It's someone who doesn't like his Wikipedia bio. Note that it's unreferenced - we really need verifiable sources on this sort of article. I'll have to see what I can find. I'll note it on WP:SCN as well. He may be a bit weird, but take it as you would anyone who doesn't like their unreferenced bio - David Gerard 11:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
His web page makes lots of (WP-irrelevant) minatory noises, backed up with links. But most or all of the links are to other pages on his own site. One (the only one?) that isn't is to this PDF file, for what it's worth. -- Hoary 09:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

References and rework

The article needs significant work and needs its references nailed down. I've made a start on this, rewriting it somewhat more clearly and listing and using more references. Needs more. Harry Palmer definitely warrants an article, but we need to get it right and be seen to be getting it right - David Gerard 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully with David Gerard that all facts in the article should be supported by good references. It would be useful if some kind of footnote system is used so it is clear which fact is supported by which reference. This would also highlight whether there are any unreferenced "facts" which may need deleting, jguk 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to hack on it over the weekend. Harry Palmer's IP did another blanking; I've left a note asking him to instead flag disputed facts or references on this talk page. We don't usually let people determine whether they're encyclopedic or not, but we do very much want to get things right - David Gerard 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm new to edits on Wikipedia. Avatar and Harry Palmer's materials with the exception of Living Deliberately are unpublished and confidential. It is difficult to have a critial discussion about the material itself without HP claiming copyright violations. If I were a licensed avatar master, Harry would pull my license for my contribution. I'll do what I can to reference my work more clearly. Integralindexer

Well, you can report about the material without copying the material, which is what would trigger copyright claims. However, the bigger problem is that if you were using material that you only had access to because you were an Avatar Master, you might run into problems with Wikipedia:Verifiability, where it would be difficult or impossible for others to double-check your work (if they can't get access to the same materials except by being a licensed Avatar Master...) However, a newspaper or magazine article reporting what its sources say about the Avatar Courses would in most cases be verifiable and an acceptably reliable source (of course, it would be a reliable source for the claim that "former members say the content is blah blah blah", not the claim "the content is blah blah blah" -- I trust you see the distinction.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Not a surprise to anyone, but the description of the dispute with Eldon Braun needs to be NPOVed. Right now it's very clearly slanted towards "Palmer was in the right, Braun was in the wrong". Even if this is the conclusion most readers would come to if presented with the full facts, we are here to present those facts, not to push the conclusion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sloppiness

"""If the student completes Section II the student is "encouraged" to move on to Section III,""". Why the scare quotes? Can we avoid the passive voice also?

Major Edit removing pertinent sources

What's the deal? The court docs with rulings against Harry Palmer and links to sites against Avatar (with externsive documentation) have been removed, leaving the article to be one big advertisement for the courses, and almost all references to web sites owned by Avatar.

I consider this a major hack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.49.216.218 (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Clean Up, POV, Sources

I've decided I've researched this topic long enough to do some major edits on it.

My goals are threefold:

(1) To remove opinion-oriented wording, or place them in a quoted context. (2) To add more specific references (3) To remove references (and possibly links to such sites) related to aquiring copyrighted materials that are available without permission.

I am also considering separate, but connected entries for "Harry Palmer (Avatar)" and "Avatar (Star's Edge)", as people may have an interest in the latter without concern for the details of the former. It will also clean up what now seems to be a bit scatterted of topic.

My position is that better documentation and more information, not less, will benefit the truth, and therefore opposing points of view if they have nothing to hide. I am open to suggestions and any information that may be available.

NOTE: I am not personally affiliated with Harry Palmer, Star's Edge, Avatar, Eldon Braun, or any other entity mentioned in the article, though some of my research has been through correspondence with some of these parties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ken JP Stuczynski (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

At it again.

Someone blanked most of the educational credentials section and replaced it with a single, though correct fact. However, I wasn't sure the history of misrepresentation of his degree(s) was pertient enough to leave where it was, so I don't plan to undo the change. I may reference it under a sub-topic of critics and controversies at a later date; I may not.

Please note I have suspicion it was a particular someone affiliated with Avatar / Harry Palmer based on a recent correspondence. Next time I hope they feel they can discuss it in the open of the Wikipedia commnity.

Ken JP Stuczynski 03:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Backing Off

As mentioned in my user page (with explanation of personal problem), I'm looking to back off from working on this particular entry, though I had plans to really clean it up. I'm making a few minor changes -- and learning some WP editing skills in the process. I'm mostly reorganizing existing content and references, but I'd like to pass some major edits on to someone else to double-check for accuracy and pertinence.

And I may request a second opinion on undoing certain blanking that may occur regarding facts I've personally verified. Any registered editors that are up tot he challenge, please drop me a line for my future reference.

Thanks,

Ken JP Stuczynski 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

LGAT designation

Basis is in artiucle by Bejamin Elliot, PhD.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Large_Group_Awareness_Training_organizations#_note-0 (http://www.integralscience.org/spiritualitycults.pdf)

Note: I don't plan on fighting over this or doing any further edits on this article. I just checked in on it for curiosity. Feel free to adjust as necessary in true keeping with WP values. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ken JP Stuczynski (talk • contribs) 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

  • Wiki articles cannot be used as a basis, and that citation is an automatic list of any article placed in that category. Placing this article in that category, and thus on that list, and then citing the list as a basis, is circular.
  • The Phd. article referenced is about cults and mentions LGAT only in passing. There is no indication, in this article, that this author is qualified to claim LGAT and the article does not define LGAT. Therefore we cannot be sure that author intended his usage to mean what the wiki LGAT-category means. I have removed the category as -uncited- Lsi john
    • The category contains groups that have been referenced by reputable secondary sourced citations from the list. That is why criterion for inclusion instructions are needed in the category page, and standards of citations are needed in the list page, and exist as such. Smee 06:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
    • You cannot assume an author did NOT mean a term to be consistent with a WP definition, and you cannot assume the author does NOT have qualification to use the term, as the term LGAT does not fall into a particular discipline as a formal defintiion. I do not understand the apprehension, except by possible negative or positive connotation or implication -- The WP definition logically and clearly applies to the subject in question, not as an ambiguous comparison or description by similarity, but meeting criterion point by point. You shouldn't even need a reference. --Ken JP Stuczynski

Clarification: Smee, please clarify this. Any article can be listed in the LGAT category as long as the article references an article already in the category? Lsi john 04:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No. Each article included in the category must be backed up by its own citation to a reputable source. Smee 05:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Now, I'm confused. sorry.. Allow me an example question for clarification..
  1. I am male, and thus in category of male.
  2. You are female, and thus in the category of female.
  3. An article about me says that I know you or live next door to you, or worked with you and says you are female. And cites WP:RS material which confirms this.
Would this qualify the article about me to be listed in the female category? Or, would the reference in the article about me specifically have to declare that I was female before I could be included?
(Yes this seems silly, but please bear with me, as it will help clarify the specifics for me.)
As I recall, you re-included an article in the LGAT category simply because it mentioned (cited a reference to) another company who was in the LGAT category, which was the basis for my definition of the category. Originally I thought that to be included in LGAT category, the article had to cite a reference which declared that the article's subject was classified as LGAT. Now I'm unclear which is your intention.
Specifically, please explain why this article qualifies to be included in LGAT, when there is no mention of LGAT in the article?
Please answer each of my questions for clarity, thank you. Lsi john 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I take issue with your examples and analogy, because they deal with individual contributors, rather than giving examples about content.
  • Here are the inclusionary criteria as tightly as I can make them:
  1. An article listed in the category Category:Large Group Awareness Training must first satisfy the inclusion criteria to be listed first at List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations.
  2. Thus, all groups listed in Category:Large Group Awareness Training must have a citation from a reputable source, listed at List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations.

That is as clear as I can make it. Smee 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC).