Talk:Tim Bowles (attorney)/Archive 1

Tim Bowles makes modifications to his article

I have just learned from a friend that Wikipedia is listing a biographical page on myself. I have reviewed and found initially two particularly egregious entries, the deposition excerption from inveterate perjurer Gary Scarff and the "Scientology Series" box of links inserted on the right side of the "article" page. I am removing each of them based on the following Wikipedia policy: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Timbowles 05:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Scientology Series" is accurate, since Bowles has worked as a scientology attorney and still works for scientology front groups. However, I find it amusing that you consider this to be libellous.

The Scarff link - as far as I know, Gary Scarff has never been indicted for perjury, so I'd be careful to make such accusations, you're getting yourself in hot water there.

However it can stay out since it's a rather poor quality source. --Tilman 10:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am proudly a Scientologist. As counsel to the Church in the late 80s and early 90s, I did help its hierarchial organizations and related entities achieve deserved religious recognition from IRS. I am also active in international human rights initiatives supported by the Church as well as by many other well-meaning groups and individuals. However, from my personal study and experience, the so-called "Scientology Series" is a slanted, unbalanced and poorly researched attempt to unfairly cast the religion and its adherents in a negative light. I am thus removing it for a second time. I find ironic that a "Tilman" (Mr.? Ms.?), someone of whom I have never heard and that to my knowledge I have never met, would undertake to do me the "favor" of re-inserting these series boxes. Whomever you are, your efforts are misguided. Timbowles 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your biography is done by people you have never met. So is mine. However, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP apply.

And thanks for confirming that you are indeed still part of the scientology series, since you're active in these scientology fronts.

About "Bowles & Hayes" - consider telling the legal directories, e.g. [1], that this partnership did indeed dissolve (which I doubt, since FindLaw is a reputable website). A central wikipedia principle is that stuff gets puts in when it is properly sourced. --Tilman 06:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh. A lesson in WP:NPOV about Scientology from Tilman....Uklady2007 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You can compare my writing style on wikipedia with the one outside. It is quite different. Which is why some things can't go into the article. Anyway, while Timbowles is unhappy about the article (he suddenly realised that the world does remember what he did in the past, and with what sort of people and organisations he's associated with), he confirmed that it is correct. --Tilman 07:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. He's not denying being a Scientologist. Quite to the contrary. When I read his discussion entry I though he was saying he wants the "Scientology Series" box removed for violating the living persons bio guidelings "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."Uklady2007 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing that "Scientology Series" box again, after rereading WP:BLP. Part of the spirit of this policy seems to be 'when in doubt, leave out' anything controversial or offensive to the living subject of a biographical article. Perhaps I'm reading too much between the lines, but I even get the impression that we are supposed to be courteous to them. This series box is clearly intended to be hostile to Scientology as it focusses on the controversies at the expense of the main concepts of the religion; anyone querying this should compare it to the series boxes for Buddhism, Taoism and other religions. It is hardly surprising that Mr Bowles finds it offensive. The Scientology series box has not been used consistently in all Wikipedia articles related to Scientology, so there is no obligation to use it here. DavidCooke 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are claiming that the "Scientology Series" box is hostile. You have not explained where it is, and how it is hostile here but not elsewhere. Tim Bowles has been an attorney for Scientology organisations, and still is. That isn't libellous in itself - it is a fact, and he admitted it right here.

If you think that something in that box is unbalanced, then discuss it in the discussion page of that box. (The controversy part is only about 1/8 of the box, and it comes at the end) --Tilman 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Scientology Series box is clearly appropriate for this person. He is an attorney that worked tirelessly for the Church of Scientology for many years. Vivaldi (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a Scientologist and I do find the Scientolgy Series box is clearly intended to portray my religion in a harmful light. You say that the controversy is just at the bottom, but from my viewpoint it is strewn throughout because the articles have inuendo and views of Scientology that are simply not accurate. I intend to work on improving the articles in the Scientology Series box but in the meantime, based on the policy on biographies of living persons, feel it should be removed from Tim Bowles' bio. Joel-morris 05:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a Scientologist too and I also have a living biography like Tim Bowles. I couldn't agree more that the negative viewpoints and inuendo is salt and peppered throughout the articles on the box. It is in no way neutral and slants the reader in a clearly negative direction toward my religion. The box should be removed as it violates the policies for biographies of living persons. I would also appreciate it being removed from my biography for this same reason. My hope is that a person coming to Tim Bowles page or my page would get the opportuynity to have true information with which to evaluate Scientology and its principles.Donpearson 07:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Don, I'm afraid you might be have a "misunderstanding" about the purpose of Wikipedia. Its purpose is not that a person coming to Tim Bowles page or my page would get the opportuynity to have true information with which to evaluate Scientology and its principles - your Wikipedia entry is not your personal homepage. If you want to lead people towards scientology, I suggest you set up one of these boilerplate "scientologist online" homepages through your local org, or set up a personal homepage at Government Technology, at the Center for Digital Government, or elsewhere. Of course you are welcome to contribute to your own article here too, but remember to read WP:NPOV and WP:V. For example, you could add your education (college, school, etc) and your scientology training details (OT3, 8, Super Power, PTS/SP, whatever your achievements are).

This is not the usenet, so everyone, even me, will be friendly to you, even in disagreements :-) --Tilman 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, "improve" the articles first. Just saying that something is "not accurate" does not make it so. The scientology articles are very well monitored for accuracy, and neutrality. --Tilman 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

They are? Steve Dufour 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tim Bowles (attorney)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*16 citations, no images yet... Smee 06:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 06:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)