Talk:Gabriel Williams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gabriel Williams article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

	Scientology Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Should not link to copyright violations

I am removing the link to the copyright violation of the New York Post article. This is clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy. Quote what you want and provide a citation, but don't link to a stolen copy of the article. Vivaldi 07:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary Smear Article

I have a couple of issues with this article:

• Is it true?
• If it is true, is it relevant? Should there be a Wikipedia entry for every Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Atheist and Agnostic Sex offender as well? Maintaining those would be a chore.
• Do folks understand that in a Scientology Organization 'Supervisor' is just an ordinary post? It is not an executive or even middle (not even junior) management position, it is just the person that is trained to be able to notice when a student might have encountered a misunderstood word. The Supervisor then helps them look up the word in a dictionary. Course supervisors in Scientology do not teach or lecture or explain anything to anyone nor do they set policy or wield managerial authority of any kind.

It just appears to me this article is an attempt to unfairly paint Scientology with a black brush by association. Seems a candidate for deletion to me, unless something can be added to make it say more than, "This guy got convicted of Statutory Rape." Maybe that point alone makes it article worthy, I don't know. Are there guidelines or precedents for this sort of thing?.

Thoughts?Slightlyright 01:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Slightlyright, you aren't going to like my answer here. I thought the same way and actually started the WP:AfD on the article. Then I researched the case a bit and came to the conclusion that there was a Scientology "angle" and the incident has relevance to critics other than simply that a Scientologist commited a crime. I pulled the AfD (here). Now is it notable enough to have a separate article? Well, is every specific Catholic priest that commits a crime notable enough for his own article? I don't know. But I pulled my AfD because, after looking into it, I did not feel it was my place to say; let another editor make the decision. --Justanother 01:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If the article were unsourced, I'd recommend it for deletion as per WP:BLP. But it is sourced, right down to links to the police report. I don't think the article itself tries to connect Scientology itself with this man in any way whatsoever, especially since I've been protesting the addition of the "Leaders of Scientology" category to it. This man does not represent Scientology or the Church of Scientology by his misdeeds in any way. On that I think we can agree. wikipediatrix 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)