Talk:Karin Pouw

BLP
I removed a large section laden with WP:BLP violations against a number of parties and basically just a WP:COATRACK. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will also post this at WP:BLPN. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is such a clear a violation of WP:BLP that one can invoke the right to remove without discussion. All the content is well sourced, and argueably belongs somewhere.  Defamation is not an issue.  But on review, I have to agree it is a WP:COATRACK. We wouldn't stuff this much stuff on Scott McClellan or Tony Snow, even though there are vast reams of coverage of their respective dealings with the press.  There has to be a distinction between the person, and the organization they represent.  We have almost no biographical info on Pouw.  This article is about the CoS's response to critics.  That's a legitimate topic, but doesn't belong here.  If Pouw expresses views distinct from the Church, and they're noted, that would warrant coverage here.  Or if this was a controversy that centred on Pouw, that would warrant coverage.  But it seems to me, she's simply a mouthpiece, and is transmitting policy she had no role is making.    --Rob (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * She most certainly has a role in drafting the response to that policy, and was at the center of multiple media reports concerning various controversies - most notably the issue with Jenna Miscavige Hill. This info is pertinent and relevant to this article.  Cirt (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a bio. This material is largely not biographical.  Also, what source do you have about who drafts what?  You have sources for who says what.  Also, take the example of a White House Press Secretary.  They may make up on their own, a response, to a non-planned question.  But if their answer is a standard White House position, than that question/answer exchange doesn't usually belong in biography of the person (with obvious exceptions).  Are we going to start making bios for every press rep of every big corporation?  Note, I'm not saying this material isn't to be included in the encyclopedia.  I'm saying it's not biographical.   --Rob (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And her title is not just spokesperson, but Director. She is one of the highest ranking executives within the organization, per their own website . She is not just drafting responses, but is involved directly in each of the issues described. Cirt (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually in her three roles - Director, Office of Special Affairs, and Spokesperson - she is involved in policy, direct responses, and public relations. Cirt (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cirt, how can you know any of what you claim. If you know Scientology then you know that policy is dictated by Policy Letters written by Hubbard and subsequently by Miscavige. I doubt she is involved in drafting policy and I wager that you cannot prove your claim either. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And on what do you base your claim that she in involved in the Office of Special Affairs. My dad had a phrase that would fit here but I will spare you that (smile). --Justallofthem (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Her title "Director of Public Affairs" makes her direct role at a high-executive-level quite evident. Couple that with the fact that she herself described the Office of Special Affairs as a "public affairs office" and we see how direct her role is at the executive level. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the 3rd party reliable source stating she had a major role in drafting policy? The name of a person's position, is meaningless.  What's interesting is you cited a Scientology web page that says Mike Rinder is "Director" or the "Church of Scientology International", even though he left the organization. Sorry, unlike you, I don't consider Scientology a reliable source, and don't blindly beleive whatever I see on their web site.  I prefer verification from independent sources. --Rob (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As do I, I was just pointing it out. However we do have independent sources saying she is a member of the Office of Special Affairs, that she is Director of Public Affairs, and that she has called the Office of Special Affairs the "public affairs office".  Her words.  Cirt (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any source for your leap that she is OSA? Also please don't carry on discussions on two forums with double-posting. There is not need for that and it makes discussion unnecessarily tedious. Respectfully suggest we move this thread to WP:BLPN and continue there only. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, still, no third party source stating her supposed authority? BTW, citing "Her words", as you do is about as bad as citing the CoS.  --Rob (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources are all already in the article,. Please Assume Good Faith. Here you go:

The French report makes special mention of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs, which it labels a private police. Stacy Brooks, a former member now working with an anti-Scientology organization in Clearwater, Fla., described the OSA as a dirty-tricks squad that targets the church's critics.

"I know all about these people," Brooks said. "They tried to smear and harass me and my husband after I left in 1989."

Karin Pouw, spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology International, called Brooks a "liar for hire." Pouw, a member of the OSA, said the office functions as a "public affairs office."
 * Dahlburg, John-Thor (February 29, 2000). "Report Urges Dissolution of Scientology Church in France - Europe: Panel calls group a danger to the public and a threat to national security." Los Angeles Times.
 * Like I said, her words. She called her member office, the Office of Special Affairs the "public affairs office" (per Los Angeles Times) - and she is the "Director of Public Affairs" (per Associated Press).  We have this from independent sources.  Cirt (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cirt, that is still a leap. In 2000 she was with OSA and spoke for the Church as a member of OSA. Just like someone can be with CCHR and speak for the Church as CCHR. Now she has a different post. There is nothing that says she is currently in OSA and there is nothing that says she drafts policy and that is not how Scientology works anyhow. Further she did not call OSA the public affairs office, she said it functions as a public affairs office. All this is irrelevant, the real issue is the WP:COATRACK issue that this material is not about Pouw and does not belong in her bio. Now, do I have to copy this over to WP:BLPN?? --Justallofthem (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In short: Her current title - "public affairs director" (per AP). Her description of Office of Special Affairs - functions as a "public affairs office". Not a leap, her exact wording. Cirt (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to your logic: Justallofthem is a Wikipedia editor. (Department of Public Affairs and Human Rights is a public affairs office.) Cirt is a Wikipedia editor. (OSA "functions as" a public affairs office.) Therefore Cirt is a Justallofthem. (Therefore the Department of Public Affairs and Human Rights is OSA.) --Justallofthem (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I am not even saying you are wrong in your guess just that it is a leap supported only by faulty logic. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. By her own wording (and per Associated Press and Los Angeles Times):
 * Office of Special Affairs functions as "public affairs office", and she is "public affairs director". All sourced to independent sources.  I can't put it any more succinctly than that.  There is no leap, just the facts and her own words.  :)  Cirt (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you take your coffee? --Justallofthem (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you actually saying that public affairs isn't squarely in OSA's Div 7, Dept 20 responsibilities? AndroidCat (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am just saying that Cirt does not have a source for his claim. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

News article mentions


Sorted by title, mentioned in varying detail. AndroidCat (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pouw's View On Freedom Of Speech
Someone with editing powers please add “Free speech is not a free pass to broadcast or publish information.” source - https://www.yahoo.com/movies/bombshell-scientology-film-alex-gibney-on-cruise-108751189867.html

PCB 2015/01/22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.184.54 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karin Pouw. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307065203/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5heELOXbk_8qWowwJGtd3RrEXdqgQ to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5heELOXbk_8qWowwJGtd3RrEXdqgQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability
This article has a lot of citations which point to sources related to Scientology where Pouw was quoted as saying something—not surprising for a "spokesperson"— while mentioning her position in Scientology. I have found very little so far that actually describes Pouw other than her post title/position. Just saying. See Trivial mentions. Grorp (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)