Jump to content

Talk:Operation Snow White/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

operation

The "Snow White Program" was written by L. Ron Hubbard (LRH) as an attempt to reduce or eliminate false reports on Scientology, the Church and LRH; especially those held by Interpol and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

Some Church staff used the program as a reason to commit illegal acts. It is a matter of opinion whether the illegal acts were in the spirit of the program.

Is that your opinion or can you provide a credible citation to back up that claim? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Series Template

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 12:20, 10 January 2006 (PST)

See:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_series
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_article_series
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Religion
There are both timeline-specific series, and series based a unifying theme. Ronabop 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Written by a former Snow White Program Chief (with a hazy memory of the program after approximately 25 years)


Why isn't the title "Snow White Program" a subsection at Scientology? --Wetman 21
28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

Operation Snow White was the largest incident of domestic espionage in the history of the United States. That goes beyond Church members "using the program as a reason to commit illegal acts." The article states that it is a matter of opinion whether the illegal acts "were in the spirit of the program" -- if LRH had other methods, legal ones, for accomplishing the aims of Snow White, what were they? What legal methods did he have in mind for "reducing or eliminating" the false reports held by the agencies in question? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Largest incident of PRIVATE domestic espionage. Hard to believe it, but there are forces in the universe worse than L. Ron Hubbard & Scientology - the largest incident of domestic espionage was the FBI's own COINTELPRO. -- LamontCranston 12:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer to NPOV concerns

As I recall, the "Snow White Program" itself, which was written by LRH, was relatively short. It was at a strategic level.

I do not recall the wording of the Program and do not have a copy of it. (Perhaps it is on the web somewhere.) But I do not recall it specifying exactly what to do and how to do it.

There were hundreds, if not thousands, of projects which spawned from the original program which were not written by LRH and which implemented the Program. It is indeed possible (or probable) that some of those lower-level projects proposed/ordered committing illegal acts.

A former SWPC

According to some testimony, Hubbard knew about the illegal acts: "Former Scientology agent Kathy Smith testified about safe houses referred to as "the garden", where secret information was amassed and filed. She said she wrote a letter to Hubbard outlining all the illegal activity she was involved in and received a note of congratulations back, signed Ron. [9] Scientology trial hears of intrigue and 'plants'", Toronto Star, May 16, 1992, p. A19." [1] Also, one witness disagreed that the "commit no illegal acts" version was the real one: As well, Marion Envoy, formerly Canada's top official with Scientology, [..] Defense council Ruby showed Envoy a document he suggested was the basis for the Snow White program and pointed out it specified using only legal means. She said it appeared to be a version of the program intended for the legal department. AndroidCat 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Different NPOV concerns

The title of this article is "Operation Snow White," but the subject is a document called "The Snow White Program." A document is just words on a page; an "operation" implies action of some sort. What is the connection between the document and the "operation?" Also, it seems to be assumed that the reports held by IRS and Interpol were "false." Is this a generally accepted fact, or the opinion of the person who wrote the Snow White Program?

None of this article is sourced. Is the person who wrote it originally still around to source it, or will someone need to go on a hunt? Titanium Dragon 03:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we get some external links on this article? --67.126.213.162 7 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

And some dates? Yaron July 7, 2005 05:08 (UTC)

Further Information

A little blurb about what happened to the people convicted (jail time/probation/fines/etc.) would be good. I for one would be interested as to what the punishment was for the incident. ThatDamnDave 18:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Mary Sue Hubbard was indeed convicted on the charges. Time magazine ran a piece on Scientology in 1991; I'll see if I can dig it up. Rogue 9 09:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a mirror here. Rogue 9 01:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

removed sentence

I've removed the following sentence: "Some Church staff used the program as a reason to commit illegal acts." There are two interpretations for this sentence, as far as I can see: one is "Church staff committed illegal acts in order to further the aims of the program," which is redundant with the rest of the article. The other is that "the Church staff who committed illegal acts were going to commit those illegal acts anyways and used the program as an excuse to commit them." While I can believe that someone might possibly hold this as an opinion (it fits with what I understand is the CoS's overall claim on the matter, which is that it was "rogue" elements who committed all the illegal acts) we need to know who is asserting this to be the case, and describe it as their assertion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Verdict details

I think this article fails to answer some obvious questions. What exactly was each person convicted of, what exactly was each sentence (e.g. length), and what did each actually serve/pay for their offense? The Moxon & Kobrin article said they were convicted of treason, which I found doubtful, and removed (as incredibly few people are ever convicted of that exact offense in the U.S.). But, that made me look here to check, but I can't see what they were convicted of. Note, that since they were charged with a bunch of stuff, simply saying they were convicted isn't very informative, by itself. We know, basically what they were investigated for, and what the investigation found. But what they were actually convicted of is notably absent. The word "illegal" covers a whole lot of stuff. This is a mid-length article, so it can easily "fit" some more detail in it. --Rob 09:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also think it would be interesting to put more material in the article about Add information about convicted individuals (their specific roles within Scientology, what are they doing now, duration of sentences, etc. : Mary Sue Hubbard, Cindy Raymond, Gerald Bennett Wolfe, Henning Heldt, Duke Snider, Gregory Willardson, Richard Weigand, Mitchell Herman, Sharon Thomas, Jane Kember, and Mo Budlong - what happened to them, their specific sentences and charges convicted, and profile info about their specific positions within Scientology prior to the convictions. Smee 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
I seem to remember that there were long-lasting consequences, for example Mary-Sue resigned from her role as leader of the chruch making way for David Miscavige. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncited, probably Unciteable information.

  • Early in the article appears; Mary Sue Hubbard (wife of founder L. Ron Hubbard and second in command of the organization, which is uncited. That piece of information is probably unciteable because Hubbard was known not being in command of the organization at that time. While it is likely he was in communication with those who did give orders, and while it is possible his communications were taken as suggestions, or in some other way, it is inappropriate for the article to make it appear as if Hubbard were in control of the organization and "gave orders". Unless of course a reference exists which states that Hubbard was in control of the organization at that time, or that Hubbard "continued to give orders" or something of that nature. The very last external link shows a personal website which presents what it calls an article which says that Hubbard gave orders, (at that time) but that isn't cited or referenced as being germane to the article. Terryeo 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Shifted the Globe and Mail story up to a cite. Thanks for pointing that out. AndroidCat 02:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the purported "legal documents" are on a personal website and don't appear to be legal documents, but are instead hand typed information which at least part of is claimed to have been difficult to hand type, the original documents the typist used, being of poor quality and not reproducable by photocopy. These sorts of hand typed reproductions don't satisfy WP:V (previously published by a reliable source) because the are reproductions by a website which has an partisan, tendentious point of view and might not, therefore, be reliable reproductions. Terryeo 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, would you please cite the wikipedia policy about websites with a "tendentious point of view"? There is wikipedia policy against tendentious editing on wikipedia, or is this another one of your ruses?--Fahrenheit451 11:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Violation of WP:OR

This edit is a violation of WP:OR. Best to stick to secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does background end and implementation begin?

As you'll see below, I'm adding a lot of material to this page, and I'm not sure where to cut off the background information. Tentatively I've decided that the background section should end right when Scientologists physically begin infiltrating the government. After this, everything seems like implementation (which will be a new section). Thoughts? Waltbucher (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're very much on the right track - keep it up. If you've got the page numbers and author byline for the press references you're putting in, that would be great (saves work later if you want to push this to a high status). MartinPoulter (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
are you talking about the newspaper articles I'm citing? Unfortunately I don't. It's obviously obtainable, though it's low on my list of priorities (for now). Waltbucher (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

implimentation is too long

and I'm not really sure how best to make it a new page...perhaps someone can point me in the right direction? Or is the length okay? Waltbucher (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO it goes into more detail than is needed for an encyclopedia article. I'd summarise some of the factual detail a bit (e.g. "Later Wolfe met Meisner at a Lums Restaurant, where he reported on his most recent theft." is not needed) and more important is to break that section up with some sub-headings. The full version would still make good reading and could perhaps be hosted on another site, but I think an encyclopedia article has to be more dry in its style. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
How much should I cut? A few lines here or there? 30%? I'm adapting it from a paper I've written, and I'm trying for a more encyclopedic tone. Feel free to cut or change whatever, obviously. Waltbucher (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unfortunately there seems to be way way too much overdependence on primary sources. These should be aggressively culled, and instead the article improved from WP:RS secondary sources - books, newspaper articles, scholarly journal articles, etc. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ready for major work

I did some major research into Operation Snow White about a year ago, and I think this article would be aided by more detail. My research, of course, is all from acceptable sources and I'll obviously be citing from this and not my research.

How do people feel about this? More importantly, the amount of information I have readily available could make this article much longer. Shall I create new pages for the sections? Waltbucher (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, take a moment to read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE (also WP:CIT has some helpful citation templates), and it might be best to start some sample work in a sandbox of your userspace, like at User:Waltbucher/Sandbox. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I actually have read all of that before. I have another username but I decided to come up with a new one for a few reasons. I think I'll bypass creating sample work since I've edited plenty of articles before. Waltbucher (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
[2] = instead of the pages of the book, could you please cite the specific page number in the book used for that cite? Cirt (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, actually that's what I was trying to do. 170 is actually the citation. Will fix right now. Waltbucher (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
So I've started adding information, and some of it is going to come from court documents. Is the way I have cited that stuff okay, or is there something else I should be doing? Thanks. Waltbucher (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
No, as stated below, I would remove the material and cites to primary sources and start over by improving the article and adding sourced material from secondary sources, instead. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. What's wrong with citing the court documents? I understand the desire for mainly secondary sources but believe this to be a unique case, as I'm pretty sure a detailed account of Operation Snow White has never really been published. Bare Faced Messiah goes into a little detail, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't cover the arrest, aftermath, or much of the trial.
From http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research,
"Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
I think that the court documents count as a reliable publication, especially considering the Scientologists eventually went to jail.
For now, I'll hold off on more until I hear your opinion. Am I missing something? Waltbucher (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It would be best to use primary sources sparingly. It is best to expand the article and incorporate and rely on as much as possible secondary sources. Then, if necessary, we can use primary sources for certain key facts. But yea, this does get into WP:NOR territory here, unfortunately. I think I shall tag the page with {{primary sources}}, until this has been corrected and the weight removed from primary sources in favor of secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindenting) I think the court record is more defensible because that has been cited in secondary sources, but speculation that one Mo Budlong may be another Mo Budlong, or that somebody appears on a WISE list *definitely* counts as original research. Here are some news publications which covered Snow White (look at adjacent years as well), and there are books which cover it as well, including A Piece of Blue Sky. In many cases, that coverage in secondary sources is based on the Stipulation of evidence, so you may find that some secondary refs can replace primary refs seamlessly. Not trying to discourage you- it's great that this article is getting worked on. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm being nitpicky, but wouldn't it be original research if I claimed that the Mo's were definitely the same rather than just pointing out that one appears in a directory?

Also you may have noticed I put more detail into the actual legal case (trial is probably the wrong word since one never really occurred). This detail all comes from newspapers.

I've never seen that page before Martin, thanks. In the next couple of weeks I'll be going through that and trying to replace as much as I can.Waltbucher (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's not so much a matter of what is defensible, as much so as that we should really rely on secondary sources for both the majority of sourcing in the article, and to provide a model for weighting to the various parts of the topic. By culling the majority of the information in the article from primary sources, we seriously run the risk of not just WP:NOR, but also the POV interpretations that come from basing most of the article on sources that we are then the first ones to analyze. This is when it gets problematic, and this is why secondary sources should be relied upon, instead. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is pointless and has no doubt been infiltrated by scientology to make themselves look good it goes with out saying then this page is full of crap and misdirectionChromagnum (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Hello. This is just a note to remind you of our policies regarding respect and politeness on Wikipedia. In a nutshell, sarcastic comments such as this and insults such as this are not productive. The relevant guidelines can be found at WP:NICE and WP:BITE and are more formally laid out at WP:Etiquette. You've made some positive contributions on the RefDesk, but you should keep in mind that disruptive behaviour is not tolerated and can lead to disciplinary action. Matt Deres (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes i have gone to these pages and seen the comments you have mentioned there is also one on a scientology page!!!!

I am extremly angry about the comments signed with my account name please except my extremly sincere appologies i have just caught my work colleuge using my account to go through the refrence desks please remove the two comments you have seen plus the one i caught him doing on scientology page.

I will issue an appology if needed to the relevent pages, if you feel the need to take action i can understand however this will not be happing again. Frustrating because i enjoy this site but feel i will be frowned apon now, rest assured this issue is resolved again my appologiesChromagnum (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chromagnum (talk • contribs)

grammar

The 3rd sentence, This was also the operation that exposed 'Operation Freakout', because this was the case that brought the US government into investigation on the Church., is unclear, and the last 5 words seem ungrammatical, if that's a word! Fp cassini (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Was the judge in on it?

"By July 20, some 13 days after the raid, a Washington judge ruled that the documents should be returned" How very convenient... Bizzybody (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Purpose

Was the purpose merely to purge the Government records of unfavourable references to Scientology ? This seems so unlikely that an alternative might be more appropriate, or the point should remain moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.245.165 (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do so few people know about Operation Snow White?

If this was the biggest infiltration of the government in U.S. history, why don't journalists or historians talk about it?Ibnsina786 (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It has been covered by mainstream news, documentaries, and such. In fact coming up here shortly the HBO and BBC documentaries will be adding to the extensive coverage of these Scientology criminal's on-going crimes.
Operation Snow White was never ended, it was never stopped, it continues to be committed by the criminals today only the syndicate only has about 15,000 remaining customers world wide so it's much less activity than it used to be. Damotclese (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the world is infested with conspiracies. Slade Farney (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Well yes, however this particular conspiracy was nolt much of a secret after the FBI raided the Scientologyc rime syndicate and seized the documentary evidence -- not to mention captured Scientology criminals inside of the Washington HQ offices of the IRS. :) With the corruption of Sheriff Lee Baca who is a Scientology stooge, we find that Operation Snow White still continues. Damotclese (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything about Baca being a Scientologist on Baca's page. Does it need updating? Slade Farney (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Baca does not admit to being a Scientology operator, however you can Google search and find photographs published of him collaborarting with Scientology on a number of Scientology scams, and probably find the unusual Sheriff Department's Gene Ingram's history which Baca allowed under his command. Damotclese (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Without defending Baca or Scientology, I am finding that Baca has endorsed programs run by a dozen different groups in the LA area, including the drug and criminal programs of Scientology, Chinese American Museum, CAIR, and others. Is he a stooge for all those groups, too? Mind you, infiltrating the IRS is not nice, and beating and raping jail inmates is not nice, in the ordinary course of affairs. If you can find confirmed evidence in secondary sources that Baca is a "stooge" for one of those groups, it belongs on the Baca page, in the same way that the Guantanamo Bay atrocity belongs on Obama's page for similar crimes. Slade Farney (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Baca got involved in Riverside County when crime boss Eliot Abelson was caught on camera collaborating with a Riverside County District Attorney Assistant in the racketeering committed against Keith Henson, pushing on Scientology's behalf for prosecuting Henson, and then years later Baca allegedly alerted Scientology agents at Gilman Hot Springs about the FBI's pending no-knock raids on "The Hole" -- in addition to other crimes Baca has committed on behalf of Scientology. He works for them, he's not just some dimwitted Republican idiot that falls for aiding and defending organized crime, he's an active agent. Damotclese (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
What's this about "dimwitted Republican idiots?" I have it on good authority that most Republicans are moderately intelligent idiots. But from just a personal POV, I do not agree we should consider Scientology fair game to anyone who wants to attack it. Henson was not imprisoned by the actions of a single person. It seems California has a law that outlawed what Henson was doing. The church could bring a complaint, but a magistrate issued the warrant. One a warrant is signed, a sheriff has the duty of his office. From then on, the DA and/or prosecutor who brought the charges, the grand jury or assize judge who indicted him, the judge who tried the case, and the jury who convicted him all agreed that Henson was guilty. They might not all have been Republicans, eh? What is "the Hole," please? Slade Farney (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Time served

Are there any public details on how much time was actually served for the prison sentences? --SwimmingNaked (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question, I have not seen any list of any of the indicted criminals' actual sentencing though Hubbard's wife was sentenced to a "maximum of 5 years" which could have meant she was let go on day #1 (though she wasn't.)
In order to find that information I believe it would require serious research, making a list of the Scientology criminals, finding which Justice Department sentenced them, finding out which prison or jail they were sentenced to, how long they were moved from one prison to the next, and when their release dates were.
One problem is that this would be considered "primary research" and would need to be backs up with suitable references and citations before it could be successfully submitted to the article, and all Wikipedia articles that cover the Scientology crime syndicate are subject to extensive vetting. Damotclese (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Mary Sue Hubbard served only one year in prison. See the Wikipedia page on Mary Sue Hubbard. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mary_Sue_Hubbard. The author cites an article from the Clearwater Sun for support.Ibnsina786 (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest on Scientology criminal racketeering note, Tony Ortega

This is something interesting which might be folded in to the extant article, perhaps as a "see also." Duke Snider, Indicted Snow White actor mentioned in the Tony Ortega blog. "Where are they now" information about the convicted criminals might be a good section. Damotclese (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Officer Skip Young to be added

I will be adding a section covering police officer Skip Young to the extant article -- unless another editor is already working on doing so. If you are, please let me know and I'll await your submission. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

So did they plead guilty, or were they found guilty?

Let's get it straight. I know the sources are poor and often careless with the facts, but let's pick those who tell the truth. In one place we say, "Seven of the 11 members of the Guardian’s Office pled guilty to just a single count of conspiracy to obstruct justice." Later, another contradiction: "Mary Sue Hubbard, Cindy Raymond, Gerald Bennett Wolfe, Henning Heldt, Duke Snider, Gregory Willardson, Richard Weigand, Mitchell Herman, Sharon Thomas, Jane Kember, and Mo Budlong, all high-ranking Scientologists, were convicted and sent to prison for five years. L. Ron Hubbard was named by federal prosecutors as an "unindicted co-conspirator" and went into hiding for the rest of his life." The court does not "convict" people who plead guilty. The court accepts the guilty plea. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me see...
"The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The Constitution further guarantees that at the trial, the accused will have the assistance of counsel, who can confront and cross-examine his accusers and present evidence on the accused’s behalf. He may be convicted only if an impartial jury of his peers is unanimously of the view that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and so states, publicly, in its verdict."
You are correct. :) Looking at Why Innocent People Plead Guilty it details the process. These Scientology criminals and traitors were caught red-handed and were obviously guilty of espionage and numerous other felonies against the United States, but they were not, as you noted, convicted of a Jury of being guilty, not those who admitted guilt. The wording in the extant article could be updated to be more accurate, yes. Damotclese (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
You can be convicted by a court of law without being convicted by a Jury. If you plead guilty, then the judge will convict and sentence you with the crime to which you pled guilty. This is true regardless of the sixth amendment for the same reason trials without a jury can exist (Bench Trial). It doesn't need to be a jury that convicts you. You have a constitutional guarantee of a jury trial in federal cases, but with a guilty plea, you waive that right.
"Because of the criminal defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial, most criminal trials are jury trials. However, sometimes a defendant decides to waive the right to a jury trial and to leave the fact-finding to the judge; the defendant is then tried in what is called a bench trial. In either kind of trial, the judge makes sure the correct legal standards are followed. In contrast to a jury trial, in a bench trial the judge decides the facts and renders the verdict." (Federal Bench Trials)--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Snow White. 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) 02:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Snow White. 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) 17:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Name

This article doesn't seem to explain anywhere why the operation is called "Snow White". --Anthrcer (click to talk to me) 10:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

That's true, Hubbard called it that because he issued a written order to infiltrate governmental law enforcement and IRS CID offices to "scrub" his crime syndicate's criminal record and evidence, he used the term "snow white" to describe the cleaning of his syndicate's crimes of governmental records, it wasn't in reference to the Disney character. The problem here is that the HCOPL (Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter) where Hubbard issued the orders are considered copyrighted, plus the criminal enterprise through it's criminal lawyers had at one time claimed that the evidence of their syndicate's crimes are some how "trade secrets" which makes reproducing the fragment here in Wikipedia somewhat problematical.
Hubbard's Guardian Order 732, 20 Apr 73 which he titled "Snow White Program" Can Be Found Here if anybody wants to provide a section on why it's called "Snow White" though extensive background in to the title of the crime boss' use of the term Can Be Found Here -- which would be a better reference. Damotclese (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I added a reference to the original GO 732, that should help explain the syndicate's use of the term. Damotclese (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

—————

Further to Hubbard's stated objective of "scrubbing" government files of information which incriminated Hubbard's organization. This article does not describe the removal, that is the theft, of documents which Scientology found threatening. Rather, it describes how those documents were copied. Apparently they were not removed. I may have misunderstood something, but it appears the government's ability to prove wrongdoing by Scientology was not damaged. Would someone please clarify how Scientology benefitted, or planned to benefit, by copying huge lumbers of files. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Snow_White/Archive_1&oldid=1088959960"