Talk:Tim Bowles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tim Bowles article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Wikipedian The subject of this article, Tim Bowles, has edited Wikipedia as
Timbowles (talk · contribs)
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
  • Keep, April 24, 2007, see discussion.
  • "No consensus" closure narrowly overturned; relisted at AfD., see discussion, 19 April 2007
  • close to a keep consensus, defaulting to keep, April 13, 2007, see discussion.
  • no consensus, October 24, 2006, see discussion.
  • no consensus, July 31, 2006, see discussion.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Article listed for deletion - AfD round 4

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Bowles_(fourth_nomination). Orsini 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for posting this, I had not even known that the deletion review was finished... Smee 07:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Come to think of it, there is probably enough material in citations from reputable secondary sources to do an article on Steven L. Hayes... [1], [2], [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38f698c71386.htm] Smee 07:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fishman & Geertz

Is it true that Tim Bowles was the lead attorney during Church of Scientology v Fishman & Geertz ? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know, but I notice the lawyers.com site lists Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, et al., 57 Or.App. 203, 644 P.2d 577 (1981) as one of Tim Bowles' own cases. (I wanted to verify which round of Christofferson v. Church of Scientology it was before adding to the article. It was certainly a notable case, and not part of Moxon & Kobrin) AndroidCat 05:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, this has been added to the article, with sourced secondary citation from WP:RS. Smee 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] American Lawyer, "The Two Faces of Scientology"

Tim Bowles appears to be identified in a 1992 American Lawyer article, "The Two Faces of Scientology", as one of the lead lawyer's for the attempt to open up Narconon's Chilocco center. I can't seem to get hold of the actual article, however. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

mailed. --Tilman 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] attempt to shudder into silence

1992, Tim Bowles attempted to prevent a newspaper from reporting about the Corydon book. The newspaper reported anyway, and printed his letter too: [3] [4]. If needed, I do also have the article with the full letter. --Tilman 16:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now added it. I see it was already in the article about the book, which I've slightly changed. --Tilman 06:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Was the letter and Bowles' actions only pertinent to the Corydon book, or others as well? Smee 06:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
No, only the Corydon book:
“ Re: Review of Bent Corydon Book

Dear Mr. Rahdert: I represent a number of Churches of Scientology.

It has come to my attention that a Mr. Koff and perhaps others at the St. Petersburg Times are considering publication of a review of L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman? by Bent Corydon.

We have evidence that your paper has a deep-seated bias against the Church and that you intend to hit the Church hard with this review. You are the only even semi-major paper that is bothering to consider a review of this book. In light of this it is quite apparent and can be proved that your motives in reviewing this book are not literary or for putting forth "news," but are to attack and denigrate the Church through any vehicle you find available.

Corydon's book is so scandalous, full of lies and unprofessional that no major publication has touched it. If you forward one of his lies you will find yourself in court facing not only libel and slander charges, but also charges for conspiracy to violate civil rights. If you publish anything at all on it, you may still find yourself defending charges in court in light of what we know about your intentions. We know a whole lot more about your institution and motives than you think.

Very truly yours, Timothy Bowles.

 ”

--Tilman 07:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So Bowles intention was clearly to smash freedom of the press. His theme seems to harp on "Anything you say about us will harm us" I wonder what Bowles thinks the intentions of the St. Pete Times are? He makes the intentions of the CofS quite clear, to harass with lawsuits and threatening letters. Real nice institution that is.--Fahrenheit451 16:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That letter is amazing.--Gloriamarie 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)