Talk:Tory Christman/Archive 1

Writing to L. Ron Hubbard

 * Christman wrote to L. Ron Hubbard, who replied that she was not a Freeloader, and should only pay for two courses. Hubbard told Christman to "continue to get auditing in their organizations" and insinuated she needed to handle her Epilepsy before she could return to the Sea Org. Hubbard told Christman he would see her "up the lines," meaning back in the Sea Org, once she had handled her physical condition.

Isn't it true that someone else took care of Hubbard's correspondance of this kind with scientologists? I'm not sure who, if it was HCO or whoever, but it might be worth mentioning, unless someone can prove that the responses actually came from Hubbard himself. (Entheta 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)) I spoke with Laurel Sullivan, who was L.Ron Hubbard's personal PR, and she told me that yes, others answered all of his communications. However, I have a feeling he probably told someone what to write, as it was opposite of what all others were saying, and he was the only person who could do that, as far as I know. Either way, it certainly helped me.

South Park Short on the 2000 MTV Movie Awards
In the sited article Sympathy For The Devil it mentions that one of Tory's last jobs for the OSA was to get MTV to either edit or remove the South Park Short that made fun out of Battlefield Earth but the wikiarticle doesn't mention it at all. Should we include this information? The Fading Light 9:12, 30 April 2006


 * I don't see why not, but be careful with the references and be clear exactly who is saying what. AndroidCat 02:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"sick" vs. "hepatitis"
An anon editor changed the description that Christman's single use of heroin "made her sick" to saying she contracted hepatitis from it. I was going to mark it as requiring a source, but I tried to find any verification for it and failed. Per recent discussion at WP:RS and the high probability of Ms. Christman being targeted for "dead agenting" I am instead removing the claim to the talk page. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

a bunch of things need to be changed because they are not appropriate for an encyclopedia page. they make her opinions of the church sound like fact. this is a page giving informnation about a critic of hte church, not that the church is evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkong (talk • contribs)

Tory herself admits to contracting hepatitis in video footage from XenuTV. It can be found here. Skip to roughly 14:50 to hear the statement or 14:35 to hear it in the context of how and when it happened. I don't know if any text documentation exists that can confirm the same, but if she willingly says this of herself, the theory that she has been "dead agented," while implied (again from Tory's mouth) in other videos, isn't the case in this particular matter.

I don't edit Wiki much and am honestly not too sure what the policy is on citing video links as sources, but considering the largely unsourced and generally debated nature of this entire article, I'll leave this bit of information as my only offering and let the more experienced tackle the rest. 71.65.101.157 15:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny how this section seems to back up her claims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.181.171 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WAY too much unverifiable detail
This article is way too long for a not terribly notable person. It is unencyclopedic as well, telling us what Tory thinks without any citations. In my humble opinion, this article should consist of a few paragraphs saying who she was and why she's notable, not a detailed life story. Phiwum 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unsourced fluff sentences like "Tory was very happy in Park Ridge, and to this day considers that foundation of growing up in such a safe, happy town was part of what helped her wake up from Scientology, years later" are sheer garbage, as far as being encyclopedic goes. Highfructosecornsyrup 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed here as well. And the part that says "sat in tears, seeing the organization for what it really was." WHAT IT REALLY WAS? FACT? That is NOT FACT. That is your opinion. I changed it to "seeing in a new light." Unbelieveable.Johnpedia 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A remarkable piece. Maybe copied out of a tabloid or so. Does anyone object to get rid of it? Misou 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * She has some notability, I believe, as a critic of Scientology. If there were an AfD, I would vote weakly but would have to see the arguments before I can say weak keep or weak delete. But certainly the article needs to be encyclopedic, which, IMHO, it is not now. However, as a Scientologist, I would prefer that another take the lead and I will help out a bit as I see appropriate. --Justanother 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it is pretty simple. [WP:BLP violation removed] Since there is not much to tell she has to blow up her stories a bit with opinions and how she "felt". End of story. I have seen such cases with other groups and they always remind me of divorcing couples. This drama might have a place in paying gossip mags but not in an encyclopedia. Misou 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to tone down some of the opinions and mind reading. I hope that people will feel that that is an improvement. Steve Dufour 12:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. Does not make her notable but at least once can read it without brain freeze. Misou 05:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is unsourced and uncritically repeats the article subject's POV as in an autobiography. COFS 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not true, COFS. She is notable and the article is sourced.--Fahrenheit451 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a good article. She is notable as a Scientology critic and also as an internet "person of interest" - the tendency to delete all color from wikipedia entries confounds me, as there is no shortage of available text. I can't tell you how many times I've bookmarked an awesome entry only to find it deleted when I co back. 70.171.20.183 10:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Real encyclopedias don't use "colorful" language, and speaking for myself, I would like to see Wikipedia be more like a real encyclopedia. But yes, Tori is obviously notable and more well known than many other CoS critics, having been on CNN and many other places. The article does, however, need sources and needs most of its trivial small-talk edited out.wikipediatrix 13:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Real encylopedias don't contain public contributions and aren't open to public editing either. 164.67.226.149 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Added some sources. Shostie (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Tory Christman refs in the news:



There's been more recently, but I haven't indexed them yet. AndroidCat (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot rejected an edit in the external links section
the XLinkBot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XLinkBot reverted addition of Tory Christman's YouTube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/ToryMagoo44  from the External Link section, apparently due to a regex rule. The notification says to take it up in "talk" before re-attempting the edit.

Since this is WikiProject Biography entry, Perhaps the works (even YouTube works) of the person being biographed are relevant for the "external links" section. Please note that I am not Tory Christman, and if I was this edit would have been violation of the "self-serving" rule.

72.36.46.253 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Major unsourced WP:OR problems with a great majority of this article
It would almost be better to scrap it to a stub and start from scratch. There are a ton of WP:OR problems with this WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable
Is this person really noteable? She has little over 3500 subscribers on youtube, and for someone described as an "Internet Activist", this doesnt seem a lot. I have wathced her videos, and she is certainly interesting and noteworthy, but this is not the same as being notable! Fasach Nua (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * She's prominent as a critic of Scientology, with lots of media attention - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is lots of media attention, that should be reflected in the references, at the moment it's not Fasach Nua (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Added some references to a Further reading section, for now. Will work on cleaning up/expanding/sourcing this article at some point soon. Cirt (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit
Just gone through and copyedited the entire thing, removing lots of NPOV and clarifying lots of stuff. Quite a bit of it was really badly written... JameiLei (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources

 * Some additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Navbox
No need to have two. Already have Scientology versus the Internet, which is more specific and tightly correlated. Please let us avoid also adding Scientology on the same page. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, in retrospect having two similar Navboxes on the same page adds clutter.  Wackywace  converse 15:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

verbage
"congregated the Internet" should be either congregated on the Internet or populated the Internet. 4.249.63.33 (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)