Talk:Philip Gale/Archive 1

Notability?
Tragic though this story is, I'm not sure what really makes its subject notable. Having read the article, it seems to be just about a talented young software developer who killed himself. He arguably wasn't notable before his death, and I don't think his death makes him notable. He was raised as a Scientologist, but I don't see where that's actually suggested to have been a factor in his death. If better evidence of notability cannot be found, this article may have to be nominated for deletion. Robofish (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (And for the record, I'm not a Scientologist myself, and have no sympathy for their organisation. I simply don't think this article passes our notability guidelines.) Robofish (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did some further work and research and removed the "notability" tag. The subject satisfies WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How
How in the Hell is this person a 4th generation Scientologist when his father joined the sect in 1968? The author obviously has absolutely NO IDEA what "4th Generation" means and, in a typical display, used a "big" flashy and dramatic sounding term to make him or herself sound more important and/or intelligent then said person actually is. as a 4th Generation Scientologist would men that his Fathe4r, Grandfather, and Great-Grandfather before him were Scientologists, thus he would be the 4th Generation of his family to be a Scientologist. I am genuinely curious to know just how the author figured that Phil here was a "4th Generation Scientologist." Because the "religion" of Scientology really isn't old enough to HAVE legitimate 4h Generation Scientologists. How the author calculated and arrived at this number is sure to be interesting, to say the lest, and this writer is quite certain that the document and source of the "4th Generation Scientologist" calculation derive from within the Church of Scientology itself. RyokoMocha (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are multiple secondary WP:RS sources for this information. -- Cirt (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Major coatrack and NPOV issues
This article was mentioned at Neutrality_in_Scientology. I just read it over and am a bit dumbfounded. Why is it so focussed on Scientology? What does his upbringing in Scientology have to do with the notability of his death? The article provides no links from tertiary sources between Scientology and his death, but the article insinuates guilt by association. He appears to be notable because he was a genius of sorts who committed suicide on the MIT campus. Is that correct? He was raised a Scientologist ... ok that bares noting perhaps ... but he left the CoS well before he committed suicide so why is so much of the entry about Scientology? Why is the co-founder of Earthlink not even named, though identified as a Scientologist? Why is his mother's local level media involvement about raising kids in Scientology mentioned in the article? Of what importance are the facts about his mother's involvement in the Church and his geographical moves in early child hood due to this involvement? Of what importance is the gossip rag level of intrigue about the Rolling Stone articles to Philip Gale or his death? This seems like a coat-rack to hang all kinds of unflattering coats on to me.Griswaldo (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Try the Boston Herald article Gale had quit the church. Even so, he chose to kill himself on March 13, the church's most important annual holiday marking the birthday of the late Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. The suicide provoked intense debate on campus, and on the Internet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology, about whether it was linked to Gale's Scientology upbringing. And [Matthew S.] Munsey soon created a Web page titled "Who is Philip Gale?" raising questions about a link between Scientology and the suicide.    similar content.   The Boston Herald is generally accepted as RS as far as I can tell.  Collect (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you'd ever lived in Boston you'd know that the Herald is considered half newspaper, half tabloid :). But that's not the point anyway. I was commenting on the entry as it currently reads, and it does not include any of the information you are quoting from the Herald.  I also note that what you did quote from the Herald is pretty close to tabloid level speculation (e.g. the significance of the date).  That a bunch of teenagers (MIT students) and members of a Scientology newsgroup speculated about a link between Scientology and his death is also pretty uninteresting and not particularly relevant to the facts of the event.  That's probably why the information isn't currently in the entry, by the way.Griswaldo (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Herald is RS by WP standards - and I certainly did live in the area, and have been in the building where the event took place (including the very floor) (years before). I consider MIT students to be very level headed as a rule, certainly more so than Harvard students.   The book I listed is, moreover, specifically on point about the issue, and thus likely a strong source as well.  Collect (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The smiley face was supposed to indicate that the comment was meant in jest. Clearly the Herald is considered an RS and I wouldn't suggest dismissing it out of hand at all.  The book you mentioned, however, is not an RS.  Lulu.com is the publisher and it appears they provide self-publishing services.  My problem with what you quoted from the Herald and linked to in the self-published book is that it is idle speculation only.  MIT students maybe level headed, but they are still teenagers gossiping and speculating about the death of a peer whose background probably seemed rather exotic or strange to them.  I still fail to see how that is of interest to an encyclopedia entry on the boys death.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about lulu - Amazon does not stress that part. The Herald article, in itself, is enough for the comment being placed in the article - if anything the removal of the date bit does not mean that the references to Scientology are improper at all.  Consider it a bit of a compromise in favour of Scientology here. Collect (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any compromises "in favor of" or against Scientology should be part of the entry writing process. Neutrality is not the result of a political tug of war.  What brought me here was a workgroup that desires to look into the neutrality issues on Scientology pages.  This entry is not neutral in its present state as it contains a whole lot of undue information.  The undue information is not justified by a speculation about the significance of his suicide date, or by reportage about that speculation.  If the reportage were covered in multiple venues, then a one liner about how the suicide was perceived by people of a certain community would be germane, but even that does not justify the whole Scientology back-story.  We don't write back-stories based upon speculations in order to make sense of those speculations.  Do you disagree with that?Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We cover what reliable sources state. We do not assert what we, as editors, know. Collect (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We absolutely do not report every piece of information mentioned in a reliable source. If we did we'd not have other policies like WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:BLP, etc.  Verifiability is simply the minimum threshold for inclusion.  Other policies apply after that fact.  I agree wholeheartedly that we do not assert what we know without verification from reliable sources, and never said anything to the contrary.  The policy being discussed here is WP:NPOV and especially WP:UNDUE, all of which tell us how to deal with verifiable information found in reliable sources.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In my view it is fine to state that there was speculation on campus and on a.r.s., as reported by reliable sources such as the Boston Herald quoted above. However, this angle should not become the tail wagging the dog. Even the Ebner article discussed below, which is well worth reading in total, devotes far less space proportionally to religious questions than this article does. Instead Ebner includes an extensive description of Gale's drug taking, personality problems, psychological issues, his grief over the loss of his father, and mentions other suicides at MIT at the time (see the Canellos reference, no. 18 at present): all issues that this article either mentions not at all, or only in passing. -- JN 466  18:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's essentially my point. That one piece of information isn't the issue, and in fact it isn't even in the article at this point.  It's the undue attention paid to Scientology in the narrative of this death.  That's all.Griswaldo (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To ignore RS sources is not, however, the solution. Might you proffer sources indicating that no relation to CoS was present as far as that author is concerned? Collect (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a bit like proving a negative. No?--Scott Mac 19:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas - that is how NPOV works on WP -- often claims are made for which the negative is highly unlikely to have been stated in a reliable source, but the policy is clear that balance is achieved by adding material, not just by deletion of a sourced claim which is not stressed beyond reasonable propriety. In the case at hand, undue stress was, indeed, removed. Collect (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:UNDUE? As Jayen points out, even the article in question pays much less attention to Scientology than our entry does, while it pays more attention to things that are either not in our entry or mentioned in passing.  We should not balance our own reportage in a direction that reliable sources have not.  All I'm suggesting is that we're paying too much attention to Scientology.  Do you have sources that prove otherwise ... because Jayen has just provided evidence that supports my claim?  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From reading Ebner, my impression was that there was much more to this story than Scientology, although you wouldn't be able to tell from this article. For one, Gale was under the influence of copious amounts of alcohol and marijuana at the time he took his life. Ebner discusses the ex-Scientologists' point of view and follows it with the statement that
 * "In any event, Philip's emotional problems closely paralleled those of many gifted college students who take their own lives",
 * before quoting a published authority on college kid suicides who points to
 * "a number of factors linked to suicides of smart young people: the death of a father, mobility and rootlessness, a difficult or failed romance, loss of a confidant, and — most strikingly — decreasing social involvement and lower levels of tolerance for others. Another problem, notes Rickgarn in the book Perspectives on College Student Suicide, is an 'understanding of adult and world situations but an impotence to effect change.' This, he says, contributes to feelings of powerlessness and frustration that can help trigger suicidal behavior. And of course, heavy use of alcohol and drugs can lower an individual's natural inhibitions about suicide."
 * This article, cited, says "people close to Gale, including his mother Marie Gale, have vehemently denied that Scientology played any part in Philip Gale's decision", with copious quotes from a girlfriend, fellow students and others who knew him well:
 * '"There were plenty of other things he was thinking about at the time," Munsey disagreed. "The fact that he chose that day to jump is not necessarily significant; he would have seen the connection with L. Ron Hubbard day, but wouldn't have cared."'
 * 'Eric Hu '98, a good friend of Gale's and his roommate at Phi Sigma Kappa during their freshman year, said that Gale's suicide was unrelated to Scientology. "Phil had given up Scientology by the time I started rooming with him," Hu said. "It wasn't on his mind when he died [because] it was a struggle he already overcame. He had decided against it." Hu said that none of the struggles in Gale's life were related to Scientology. "His struggles at the time of death had more to do with the possibilities of his life," Hu said.'
 * '"I'm certain that his decision to end his life had little, if anything, to do with Scientology," said Christine C. Hrul, a close friend of Gale's and a student at Wellesley. "I don't believe that anyone close to him had considered the connection seriously... His Scientology background never played a frequent role in our conversations," she said.'
 * 'Gale's family members also denied any link. "I am a member of the Church of Scientology and have been since well before Philip was born," Marie Gale said. "Several years ago Philip decided that Scientology was not for him - nor was any other religion. I honored his decision and he honored mine and the difference in our choices was never an issue in our relationship," she said.'
 * '"I don't know of any indication that Scientology had anything to do with it," said Robert M. Randolph, Senior Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education and Student Affairs.'
 * '"While I am a Scientologist, I am a mother," said Marie Gale, "and my son, whom I loved and respected and, more than anything, wanted to be able to achieve his goals in life - whatever they were and wherever they took him - is gone."' -- JN 466  20:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd juxtaposition
It seems odd to me that the most utilized source in entry, used mostly without attribution, is a source written about in the entry itself as follows: I'm not sure what the solution is, but how can we discuss openly the controversy surrounding the source but then write most of the entry based on it without attribution or any mention of the fact that it is the same source? I'm not suggesting that we cut the source out, nor that we attribute it every time it is used, but I feel like the current situation is less than optimal. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark Ebner, an investigative journalist, was hired in 1999 by Rolling Stone to do an article on the death of Philip Gale.[1][19] The Church of Scientology sent Rolling Stone a file with information critical of Ebner, and Rolling Stone decided not to publish Ebner's piece.[1][19] According to Ebner, he was instructed by his assigning editor that the owner of the Rolling Stone publication, Jann Wenner, was a friend of celebrity Scientology member John Travolta.[1][19] New Times LA published a version of the piece in 1999.[1][19] In 2008, the full article was published by Gawker as part of its "Unspiked" project, and on Ebner's website.[1][19]


 * To the extent that sources apply to the full paragraph content, they only need be addressed at the end really. Collect (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reply. I'm asking about the fact that the entry discusses a controversy surrounding a source that it uses earlier on in the entry to source content, and never makes a connection to that fact.  It's rather odd, and I feel that some solution can be found.  What do you think?Griswaldo (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you figured out what I meant :). Collect (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did. I'm still wondering about the rest though.Griswaldo (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is usually better to cite a source at the end of each sentence, as otherwise confusion will result later on. The way this usually happens is that you start out like this:
 * Sentence One. Sentence Two. Sentence Three. Sentence Four.[Source 1 covering sentences One to Four]
 * Then another editor adds a sentence in mid-paragraph, with a source, and you end up with this:
 * Sentence One. Sentence Two. New Sentence.[Source 2 for new sentence] Sentence Three. Sentence Four.[Source 1 covering sentences One to Four]
 * Sentences One and Two are now separated from their source. Anyone looking to verify them will look in Source 2, which may not contain this material. And things get worse when a paragraph break is added after the new sentence, or further material is added. The sourcing is no longer reproducible, and sentences One and Two may end up deleted because they are not in Source 2, etc. -- JN 466  01:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Note
The article is being discussed at BLP/N. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Putting unreliable sources in through the back door is a bad idea.
The lead of the entry contains the following source: Marlan, Tori (August 15, 2002). "Death of a Scientologist". Chicago Reader (Chicago, Illinois: Creative Loafing Inc.). Retrieved 2010-05-12. I believe it is being used inappropriately for a variety of reasons. Here is the paragraph in which all the information on Gale is contained, with the sum total of the Gale information bolded. Apologies for the long quote but the context is important: I have a couple of problems with this. 1) Why would we use a source with a one-liner in it that presents absolutely no new information, and in the lead no less? 2) Why are we using a source that isn't even discussing the death of Gale directly, but mentions it only because it is describing the contents of another source, a list on FACTnet.org, and FACTnet is not reliable in the least? The second point seems the most troubling to me. In essence we're backdooring FACTnet into the entry which is not appropriate at all. This would be like backdooring Scientology publications quoted or described in scholarly literature as if the scholarly literature itself is discussing the same material directly. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wollersheim now operates FACTnet.org, a Web site intended to educate people about cults and mind control. He has posted on the site a list of suicides and deaths he believes can be linked to Scientology, among them that of Hubbard's own son, 22-year-old Quentin, who died in 1976 after being found comatose in a car with a hose running from the exhaust to the driver's window. The list also includes Noah Lottick, a 24-year-old church member who in 1990 jumped out of a tenth-floor window in Manhattan, not far from a Scientology center. According to a 1991 Time magazine cover story, "Scientology: The Cult of Greed," Lottick, who'd spent $5,000 on church services, died clutching $171--"virtually the only money he hadn't yet turned over to the Church of Scientology." In 1998 Philip Gale, whose mother worked for the church's Citizens Commission on Human Rights, also jumped to his death from a tall building--on Hubbard's birthday. The highest-profile death on the list is that of Lisa McPherson, a 36-year-old member of the church who died mysteriously in 1995 while in the care of Scientologists. Her aunt filed a wrongful-death suit, claiming that Scientologists had labeled McPherson a PTS, or Potential Trouble Source, after she exhibited signs of mental instability and expressed a desire to leave the church. The suit also alleged that Scientologists had held her against her will at Flag for 17 days in a program called "Introspection Rundown," keeping her in isolation and denying her "appropriate fluids, nutrition and medical care." During this time McPherson "tried to flee and was physically restrained, including being tied to the bed, and her condition worsened until she was babbling incoherently and unable to sleep." Ultimately she "slipped into a coma or coma-like state" and church members took her to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead."


 * : Why not? A source is a source. Having more than one source for a single information is better than having only one.
 * : The source takes the suicides' list from FACTnet, true. But even if it picks up the episodes from it, it seems to me that it doesn't directly quote the episodes' description from the list; it lists them factually, it doesn't attribute their description to FACTnet. So I don't think we're backdooring stuff. In any case the information, as you say, is confirmed by other sources, so quoting this source is distinctly harmless. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No it is not harmless. The source isn't discussing the topic directly but describing its inclusion on a list from a website ... which is what the source is actually discussing (the list on the website).  The only appropriate way to use the cited source on Wikipedia would be to use it in the proper context.  For instance is FACTnet or the list on FACTnet were being discussed directly.  If, for instance, there was text in this entry like this: "The death of Philip Gale is often listed on anti-Scientolotgy websites tracking deaths that they believe are related to Scientology."  The current use of the source is blatantly inappropriate.Griswaldo (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moved the source in the only manner that it could be used properly. I will abstain from weighing in on whether or not the inclusion of this information is appropriate but would like others to weigh in on this please.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved it together with the other speculation. Personally, I would not be sad to lose it; there is much else one could add before this snippet of info. -- JN 466  21:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. I added the info as a compromise, since Cyclopia was hellbent on keeping a reference that was being used inappropriately.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Cycl o pia talk  00:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken it out again. -- JN 466  05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved page title
Moved page title, to "Death of Philip Gale". Please, feel free to discuss. -- Cirt (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit odd to me - I was expecting that the article would be about a hugely notable individual whose main article was so large the "death" section needed to be hived off but obviously Gale is chiefly notable for his death. I would recommend moving the page back to "Philip Gale". Cavie78 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If as you say he is "chiefly notable for his death", then this is indeed the appropriate page title, at present. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your logic, we don't have The heart transplant operation of Louis Washkansky Cavie78 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that article could be moved to First human heart transplant. -- Cirt (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that this seems strange; I've therefore filed the move request below. --Cyber cobra (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)