Talk:Noah Lottick

message: This article is about as fair and balanced as a Fox News report. 
1. It starts out by stressing that Lottick was mentioned in a TIME expose on Scientology (and that article now disturbingly has a Wikipedia article of its own, the first and only Wikipedia article devoted to a magazine article), and then goes on to needlessly mention that said article won some award (what does that have to do with Lottick?).
2. The section called "Scientology courses" actually only devotes one sentence to Scientology courses. Everything else in the section is tawdry gossip about how weird Lottick acted after he became a Scientologist. It's sourced gossip, of course, but it's still gossip nonetheless, and serves no real encyclopedic purpose.
3. Then we have the "Suicide" section, which manages to drag Scientology's name into it more than once even though no actual evidence of Scientology's involvement is given. Not unless you count quotes from the boy's grieving father, calling Scientology psychopathic. 
4. Scientology's side is given a mere three sentences, seemingly tacked on as a "I guess we better do this to look fair" sort of afterthought, at the end of a long article filled with baseless intimations and hints that Scientology was somehow responsible for Lottick's suicide. 
Why am I defending Scientology, you may ask? I'm not. I'm trying to keep overzealous anti-Scientologist editors from turning Wikipedia into tabloid journalism. Scientology is sufficiently weird and off-putting just by itself - you don't have to contrive these conspiratorial "Scientology murder mysteries" to make your case against them. You don't have to create a separate article for every Scientologist who ever died. You're hurting your case when you go to such extremes.
And why is this article deemed important enough to be in Wikipedia's Scientology template? As scandals go, Lottick is no Lisa McPherson. wikipediatrix 03:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I love it when I type a detailed analysis of something, and that something's author fires back two quickie sentences that basically says nothing. I already dealt with the "sourced" issue in what I typed above. wikipediatrix 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss content instead of subtle attacks on individual editors.  Thanks.  Smee 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just wrote a freakin' novella-length analysis of the content, which you dismissed out of hand. wikipediatrix 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Smee. It is properly sourced. Your theory about "sourced gossip" etc is somewhat surprising. Maybe Noah isn't Lisa. But he was still a human being who died because of scientology. Btw when in New York City in 1998, I slept in the hotel where he had jumped, and in the same floor. It looks like a really long way down from there - he must have been really desperate. His name and memory was important enough for ME to do this. There is no need to start a discussion for the sole purpose of discussing. --Tilman 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Tilman.  I meticulously went through and made sure every single fact was cited to reputable secondary sources.  In fact, the article was drawn from reputable secondary sources, and not the other way around...  Smee 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To each their own reality. The article, as it stood before my rewrite, was, to my eyes, blatant sensationalist tabloid-style junk, and horribly skewed in such a way to paint Scientology in the worst possible light even though no connection between them and his suicide was ever proven. As I've said elsewhere, this is not good for Wikipedia and it's not good for anyone seeking to educate the public about the real problems with Scientology. It makes us all look very childish and disreputable. To defend an article like this is to help Scientology by weakening Wikipedia's appearance of reliability and fairness. Noah Lottick is not another Lisa McPherson, no matter how rabidly some would like to use him as one. Just because something is impeccably sourced doesn't mean it's encyclopedic, nor does it mean it's been presented in a fair manner in the context of the article. The article, like many Smee has had a hand in, is written with an extremely heavy-handed axe to grind against Scientology, and it shows. Try a little subtlety and you'll achieve your goals more effectively! wikipediatrix 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please comment on content, not the contributors, or you risk violating WP:NPA.  Thanks.  This last comment of yours is highly inappropriate, and inaccurate.  Smee 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's another quickie reply that tries to change the subject to ME. Either put some effort into this conversation or take it to a higher power. I've spelled out in great length what I think is wrong with the article and why, and you're spending more time taking offense than dealing with my points. wikipediatrix 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you have spent more time attacking individual editors than politely discussing issues with anyone.  Smee 17:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet another quickie reply, and yet another attack on me instead of talking about the article. Am I wasting my time asking you to address my many points (hint: it's the honkin' HUGE POST at the top of this thread, with points numbered) ? wikipediatrix 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite frankly, I was a bit taken aback and hurt by your abrasive comment.  I will take a breather here, and later see if I will respond more than Tilman already has.  Smee 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unbalanced 

message: Smee's way: 
My way: 
1. My way properly separates the family's accusations and hearsay from fact. When you arrange the info properly, as I have, the reader can see that virtually all the negative (and unproven) claims come from the baseless lashing-out of the grieving parents, and the ensuing media regurgitation thereof.
2. My way doesn't drag Scientology's name in at every chance, like with the section pointlessly titled "Scientology courses" nor does my way deliberately juxtapose them against reports of Noah's behavior with the foregone conclusion that they're connected. That is tabloid 'journalism' at its worst.
3. My way makes it clear that no wrongdoing by Scientology was ever determined. Why would anyone remove the sentence "No connection between the Church of Scientology and Lottick's suicide was ever determined in any way, medically or legally"?
4. My way mentions Lottick's parents later involvement in the Behar case but doesn't see a need to expand this tangential matter into its own section.
5. Smee reverted my renaming of "Response from Scientology" to "Response from the Church", even though my way is technically more accurate. The philosophy itself didn't respond, the Church did.
6. I admit that a couple sources get lost or disused in my version, and that could probably use some tweaking and improvement. But not at the expense of fairness. wikipediatrix 17:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lesson in fairness - or at least in making it LOOK fairer anyway 

message: I'm not trying to support one side or the other, I just deleted the  infobox because the article is, in my opinion, too small to need two Scientology infoboxes. I noticed some artifacts in the image, so I reduced the size to make them less visible. Lastly one of the references went nowhere, since it was called time I assumed it was supposed to be the Time article I replaced the empty reference with. Anynobody 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article maintenance 

message: Hi guys.  You will find this rather surprising but, though I’ve never been a scientologist I have worked with them, while, at the same time, I abhor their cult.  
I must totally side on this one with Wikipediatrix.  One of the stupidest things I have encountered with scientologists is their mania of blaming any suicide attempt or mass murder on psychiatry, for instance the school shootings.  Ironically, like psychiatrists scientologists are willfully ignorant about the family dynamics that causes psychoses.  It doesn’t matter that not every school shooter was on Ritalin, Luvox or other stimulant or antidepressive, scientologists always want to blame suicide on psychiatric drugs —even if the guy wasn’t taking drugs!
Similarly, the journalistic articles which blame the cult for Noah’s suicide are journalism at it worst.  It reminds me the stupid wiki people that are pushing their conspiracy pov in the 9/11 conspiracy article.  I don’t like political conservatism at all.  I hate it.  But it isn’t good for anyone seeking to educate the public about the real problems with America to promote this conspiratorial nonsense.
Exactly the same can be said about Scientology.  We are supposed to be serious encyclopedists, not poor journalists.  
—Tito58 17:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  must side with Wikipediatrix 

message: Substituted at 01:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment