Jump to content

Talk:Bob Minton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV

[edit]

I've added a POV tag instead of reverting. What is missing is the outcome of the "omnibus hearings" (both before Judge Schaeffer and Judge Baird), which was no so good for scientology and Minton. --Tilman 17:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2] --Tilman 10:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this is not NPOV. The second half sounds like it was written by the damn Church of Scientology itself. The fact is that scientology extorted Minton, and he gave up his criticism because he couldn't stand to have his life dominated by court cases. The "quote" from Bob is completely unsighted (by wikipedia standards) and is highly unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.205.125 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a whole re-write to make it NPOV, and coherent. Article don't really do much, apart from confuse.

The second part is written all to passionately from Scientology's POV, don't you think?

I agree, the article needs to be researched and fleshed out. As it stands it's a barely coherent jumble of biased proceedings. --Joseph Duchesne 16:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixed quote to view more easily

This article is very biased toward Scientology's view of events. I agree that's it's basically an incoherent string of conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.13.76 (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems 9 of the sources in POV - challenged area come from one newspaper, and many references from one author. Without more sources, it is difficult to form a judgment on the authenticity of the some statements, especially when some quotes are explained to be hearsay, but are directly attributed. terms such as 'allegedly' may be in order. It would be proper, for instance, to source quote court texts if they are available, and not someone's recounting of court proceedings. --Betaben (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Terrible article

[edit]

This article is a mess and IMO needs to be completely re-written. About 2/3 of it is "ceases criticism" with only 1/3 about his actual work fighting Scientology. I would guess this is Scientologist editors trying to discredit him. Obviously, Bob Minton is notable for being an outspoken critic of Scientology, not for stopping his criticism. That should be in their, but it should be only a few sentences, with most of the article about his work opposing Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.40.183 (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree, insofar as that this is a terrible article. However, it needs to be expanded, not slashed. Minton's cessation of criticism, and switching over to the other side, was an extremely important part of his history, and its effects nearly destroyed Scientology criticism for years. However, prior to that, he had a lengthy history of effective actions against Scientology. One specific example is his offer of $350,000 to anyone who brought forward information that resulted in Scientology losing its tax exemption. The activities of the Lisa McPherson Trust were also very important, and involved many other Scientology critics and advocates, including Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun, the recent defectors from the cult who are now themselves highly prominent in Scientology criticism. This article should accurately reflect a lengthy career of criticism, as well as the dramatic about-face. 67.82.94.159 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Some cites which may not be in the article yet:

That includes significant as well as passing mentions. AndroidCat (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

date inconsistency

[edit]

The birth date is a year off from the "births" category at the bottom. I can't fix it. Keith Henson (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophet

[edit]

I see someone added a note about The Prophet which is a movie ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277255/ ) which Robert Minton mostly funded and assisted to produce. That actually should be added to the article, indeed there is a great deal of histolry and relevant information about Mr. Minton that the article should cover if only to more fully describe the humanitarian work he did.

If the editor who proposed the addition to the test would create a new section covering some of Mr. Minton's accomplishments and humanitarian work, that would be relevant. Damotclese (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Changed his views"

[edit]

Greetings, the editor who reworked the text, Mr. Minton did not change his views about the Scientology corporation's alleged human rights crimes and alleged financial crimes, he remained committed to working to dismantle the enterprise. He did, however, issue statements in public allegedly at the behest of the Scientology corporation allegedly due to strong-arming. However Mr. Minton continued to work with human rights groups and individuals -- myself included -- and he worked closely with me on getting a number of Scientology's Narconon people indicted as well as thrown out of an township in Ireland.

The text should be reworked, though, he wasn't "grilled," he was allegedly shown documents that Scientology thought evidenced criminal activities conducted by his company while he was running things, and Robert caved-in to the documents that were set before him.

He and Stacey stumbled out of Flag and Robert threw up outside. He felt forced to make statements however he never changed his views about the enterprise. Damotclese (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that he changed his views, but that he changed his attitude. The distinction is that "views" are how you see things, while "attitude" is how you carry yourself. The reason that I changed it is that starting a paragraph with "Minton's turn came" is confusing: it sounds like "then it was his turn". How about something like "Minton changed his testimony in the Lisa McPherson case after ..."?
Also, "grilled" is extremely non-neutral language, and is certainly not "encyclopedic tone". "Questioned" is neutral. The casual reader can glean the nature of the questioning from context, I'm sure. --Slashme (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Humm... I think you have a better way of looking at it than I do, yeah. I don't feel strongly about it, I was just thinking that it's unfortunate he was unable to speak freely toward the end. Yeah, "Grilled" does not sound good. :) If you would, please do change the text, I was just hoping it would not sound as if he changed his mind about Scientology. I know that on their "Freedom Magazine" they actually make that claim, and have used the claim in Dead Agent packs sent to city officials when the Lisa McPherson Trust is mentioned. Damotclese (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made those changes. Let's keep up the progress!
It's a thing of beauty! :) Thanks, reads much cleanly. Damotclese (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside -- Robert Minton on Mark Bunker's YouTube

[edit]

If I may, I'd like to note that Mark Bunker's YouTube channel has recently posted some fascinating video including Robert Minton, curiously what appears to be a Boy Scouts of America "leader" mentally abusing (presumably his own) children on behalf of the Scientology corporation. Damotclese (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Minton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, the BobMinton.Org domain name was released. Damotclese (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Minton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Minton&oldid=1204019414"