Talk:Milton Katselas

Article reprint
Note that ''Oppenheimer, Mark (September 9, 2007). "Friends, thetans, countrymen", The Daily Telegraph is a reprint of Oppenheimer, Mark (July 15, 2007). "The Actualizer". New York Times''. (I haven't checked word-for-word, however.) AndroidCat (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to have an online source. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah I see The New York Times version is online, nevermind. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Death noted on Wikipedia before hitting the news?
this edit on October 26 may have been done before any news sources existed per this edit. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"supressive and unhelaty for further growth"?
The current article state:

In 2004, Scientologist actors began leaving Milton's school due to unusual behavior that had developed among the staff which was seen as suppressive and unhealthy for further growth.

The source says nothing of the sort. Also the wording seem peculiar. "Supressive" is an expression found in Scientology, as in Suppressive Person. It is not likely to be understood outside of Scientology circles, and should also be sourced. The source presented says Katselas did no longer protelyze Scientology, which may have been what was implied by the sentence. It should be reworded however. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you come across any reliable sources regarding Milton's exact auditing level? According to the Truth About Scientology website, it seems he was last on OT V, but I don't know whether it is commonly accepted here as a valid source. Also, I believe somewhere there is an article including an email from Milton discussing this issue, as well as commenting on the Cardone email, but again, considering the situation with that article, I'm not sure we could include it here. Laval (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping out here! Both Ortega and Wright says he was stalled on OT V for years. Unlike Cardone's letter, that's hardly a controversial statement. Besides, we're not limited by the BLP rules here.


 * Wright actually touches on the Katselas affair in his book, see here. In his version, Jenna Elfman was the driving force. If he mentions Cardone too, we'll have a source that is beyond reproach. I suppose I need to get a hold of the book. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Curious and curiouser! Thanks for the link! I had no idea about that Wright even mentions Elfman. I'd be surprised if his book will mention Cardone, however, given that the news about Cardone's letter probably leaked well after his final draft was completed and going through fact checking and the like. I'm not convinced about Gorman's claims that the Village Voice is not to be considered a reliable source, but I've given up on the Cardone article due to his threats to have anyone inserting that information banned. We need the involvement of other editors on this issue. Laval (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

He can't have anyone banned for that. If he fails to show up and explain why, I'll insert it again. I wont to read Wrights book first though, to see if there's something there I can use. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what his story is, and I've requested several times that he explain the reason why he thinks the source is a vio of BLP, but instead of explaining, he's threatened to block/ban or go to ArbCom. Per guidelines and policy, he must explain the reasons for opposing the source and I don't think it's written anywhere that an editor can just oppose any source without explanation, using BLP as a justification, especially when BLP is not being enforced in articles that actually do violate BLP. IMHO, there is no vio of BLP regarding the Village Voice source, and I mentioned that Allen Barton was quoted on the record confirming the email. Having said that, I personally would advise other editors get involved and perhaps even open a Request for Comment. And considering that I received a stern warning from an admin, while Gorman and Bbb23 were not, I think they could actually have the influence to block/ban another editor, even when the accusations are baseless. IMHO it's not worth it. Laval (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)