Talk:Tommy Davis (Scientology)/Archive 1

title of article

"Scientologist" really should be capitalized in the parenthesis of the article's title................. (a la Incident (Scientology), Implant (Scientology), etc. wikipediatrix 00:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Smee 05:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

POV

What the heck's going on with POV in the "Fair Game Advocate" section of this article. Personally i agree with what is written but it's worded like a blog and very biased. I don't want to delete the whole section as it contains some indesputible facts so I'll have a go at re-writing it, but someone more experienced also needs to have a go at it. --Ukdan999 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not look so much like Fair Game practice as the use of "Reporter TRs". In any case, there is no media citation to substantiate your edit.--Fahrenheit451 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, please note that the "Fair Game" section was not my edit. I didn't add it to the article, I actually edited most of the nonsense out of it. --Ukdan999 00:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, sorry. It was evidently from an i.p. address.--Fahrenheit451 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sweeney

Davis was "spoken loudly to" by Sweeney? That's a bit understated! Sweeney was barking like a pomeranian with rabies. I'm changing the article's wording to "yelled at", at the very least. wikipediatrix 15:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, I restored Steve Dufour's edit of "spoken loudly to" as it is NPOV and common english. Please keep your imaginative opinions out of your editing here.--Fahrenheit451 16:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, you don't usually complain about my "imaginative opinions" when it's regarding information that's critical of Scientology. And it's also odd that you usually call it a "personal attack" when someone speaks to you in the manner you just spoke to me. What sources do you bring to the table that specifically state that Sweeney was merely "speaking loudly" and not shouting or yelling? wikipediatrix 17:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, please W:AGF. I suggest you take up your objections with Steve Dufour and not wrong target me. --Fahrenheit451 19:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should I take it up with Steve Dufour? I'm talkin' to you because you're the one who reverted the edit, and you're the one who insulted me with this "imaginative opinions" nonsense. You made these statements, not me. So stand up and explain them and defend them, if you can. Meanwhile, I've restored the word "yelling" and provided several newsmedia secondary sources for it. And I can get more. wikipediatrix 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix. Sorry to see you are so hypersensitive about my comment about your imaginative opinions which refered to your very hyperbolic phrase, "barking like a pomeranian with rabies". I stood up and defended them. Thanks for finally citing your edit. If a barking female pomeranian with radies can, so can you. --Fahrenheit451 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yelling is fine with me. It originally said hollering, which is a slang expression. Steve Dufour 01:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

You Anti-Scientologists are as crazy as the Scientologists. Does anyone really think the following sentence from the article is in line with WP:NPOV? "Dispite days of harrasment by Scientology members, including being shadowed by private investigators, Sweeny immediately appologized for loosing his temper." --Ty580 09:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, it's unsourced and with five misspellings reads like it was written by a child. wikipediatrix 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation standardization needed

I know I already put this in the to do list, but these citations really need to be standardized with Wikipedia:Citation templates. The hyperlinks themselves are not enough, they might not be up there forever, thus dates, authors of articles, etc. are needed as well. Smee 18:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Worthy?

Is Tom Davis actually an important or credible enough person to have an article about him? Only thing that makes him interesting is his fight with Sweeney, I recommend this article be merged with the Panorama Scientology and Me article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.115.177 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since he's the head of Celebrity Center International, a unit of Scientology's international organization, I'd say he's important enough. WillOakland (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP

I have brought up my concerns at WP:BLPN. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP/N response:I removed the Village Voice blog comment as it is not a reliable source and a BLP issue. The rest is cited to newspaper, so are from RS; they should be reviewed for WP:UNDUE. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make that call. --Faith (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This information should be restored. Tony Ortega is not simply a blogger - he is the Editor-in-chief of The Village Voice:

Press Release, Village Voice Media (March 5, 2007). "Tony Ortega Named Village Voice Editor-in-Chief". The Village Voice. {{cite web}}: Check |first= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

The Editor-in-chief of The Village Voice may be considered WP:RS in commenting about his specific area of expertise, the news and individuals representing information and discussing it on CNN. The source is also WP:V. If Justallofthem (talk · contribs) considers him biased, then per Wikipedia site standards he is welcome to bring forth other reliable, third party sources who take a different view, in order to present the range of expert opinion on the matter. That way, Wikipedia's readers can make up their own minds. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't make any difference if he is the editor, this ref is a blog, his opinion, not represented as "news" or RS. It violates WP:BLP. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP/N response:The Village Voice is a tabloid, not a newspaper, from what I can see, and the material came from a tabloid blog. As such, it's my opinion that it's no more than gossip and needs to remain out of the article. I'm not an interested party to either side, but IMO that's not a RS and it's a BLPvio (WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid"). The rest you'll have to come to consensus on, as it's all cited to respectable newspapers, as far as I could see. --Faith (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to FaithF: - Respectfully, there is zero source provided, so far as I can see, to show that The Village Voice is anything other than a respectable newspaper. Unless you can provide a third-party source for your assessment of "tabloid" ? And as for Tony Ortega, he is a Livingston Award and Eugene S. Pulliam Award finalist, and is a recipient of the Virg Hill Arizona Journalist of the Year Award, the Los Angeles Press Club Award for best news story, the 2002 Unity Award and the 2005 Association of Alternative Newsweeklies award for best column. This source is most certainly WP:RS. Respectfully request that you please reconsider your assessment of The Village Voice and Village Voice Media. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, just read the very WP article you link to for a discussion of the tabloid nature of the Voice. ps, if you make identical posts in two places it makes extra work to carry on a coherent discussion. Respectfully suggest you strike one or the other of the identical comments. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing at WP:BLPN, and I thought it best that individuals that peruse that forum should be made aware of the situation. And yes, I did check the Wikipedia article on "The Village Voice", and I found it to be inaccurate and virtually wholly unsourced, so no, I do not trust that article as the best source for a characterization on the respectability of this award-winning Newspaper. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Re the double-posting, respecfully suggest that a simple "please see discussion at . . . " is a better solution. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see thread at WP:BLPN. In short, The Village Voice is a highly respected media publication and has been honored with numerous awards, including multiple Pulitzer Prize awards and the George Polk Award. The writings of the Editor in chief of such a highly-respected and award-winning publication are most certainly WP:RS and WP:V and are appropriate for Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, tabloid is a simple description of the printing format, not the quality of newspaper. (Toronto's dailies are split between broadsheet and tabloid formats.) Trying to label The Village Voice with the pejorative sense of tabloid doesn't make it non-RS. AndroidCat (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going on in two places but be that as it may. The issue is that this is simply a blog entry by a critic of Scientology, be he the editor or no, and as it a derogatory characterization of Davis the more stringent sourcing rules of WP:BLP apply. It is one thing to report what Davis himself said, it is another to report a lone derogatory opinion by a critic. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

By this edit, User:FaithF accepts Tony Ortega and Village Voice as a Reliable Source (by maintaining citation #8.) User:FaithF rejected citation #20 by the same author in the same publication on the basis that it was in the form of a blog rather than a news story. WP policy does not outright ban the use of blogs as RS. Mainstream news blogging is becoming a more acceptable form of news presentation, as witnessed by the award-winning blogs by staff journalists at the Sydney Morning Herald. --David from Downunder (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I did nothing of the sort. I said it is my opinion that the source is unreliable, and the other sources, if cited to respectable newspapers, are acceptable for that reason. Don't attempt to put words into my mouth by pointing to one I missed. Blogs are not acceptable when they come from gossip rags; SMH is not a gossip rag, while the VV appears to be one. This is my last comment here as I've given my opinion on the matter now and do not intend to take part in this bickering. --Faith (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OOoooohhhh.. try ASSUME GOOD FAITH. I apologise most sincerely for not recognising YOUR MISTAKE then. --David from Downunder (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Practice what you preach, then, David. You falsely attributed something to me without asking if that was my intent. Try assuming good faith that I meant what I said, and that it was a missed citation. --Faith (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

David, instead of trying to parse FaithF's edits and make your own interpretation of them why not simply pay attention to what she has already said on the subject. I have asked you to self revert as you have three reverts of this material in the past 24 hours and this article is under probation and even one revert may draw attention. So please self-revert and we can take it from there. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with David from Downunder (talk · contribs), and a few of the awards that The Village Voice has received are briefly mentioned here - and more are mentioned here - Editorial Awards. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tabloid: http://www.villagevoicemedia.com/awards/view/2008/950 --Faith (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)--Faith (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Can you please provide a third-party source stating that this particular use of "tabloid" refers to the quality of journalism presented? Even so, the word "tabloid" is simply a word, and in the face of the numerous prestigious journalism awards received by this media institution over the decades that it has been around, it can most certainly be considered a WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Michael Musto, gossip columnist and critic for the Village Voice, Gossip: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/archives/2008/05/schindlers_dis.php. --Faith (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

An interesting piece, and yet I do not see how that pertains to this discussion. Perhaps if we were talking specifically about gossip columns and Michael Musto, but no, we are talking about The Village Voice as a whole and its Editor in chief. MSNBC publishes a gossip column, CNN has gossip segments, does that invalidate those media publications in entirety? Cirt (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid just refers to the size of the newspaper ("compact"). The pejorative connotations come from the fact that many papers with a tabloid form are gossip newspapers. The Village Voice is clearly not just a gossip paper, having won 3 Pulitzers. Faith should stop arguing in that vein because it is a dead end. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Topic covered extensively on BLPN; an editor just decided to talk about it in both places, confusing the matter. --Faith (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ortega's opinion

The last time I took this to WP:BLPN the responding editor came down firmly that Ortega's opinion was inappropriate material (see above). Instead of sticking with that we got into this round and round about how many awards this one or that one won. And the contentious material went back in. Now I find yet another guideline that speaks against inclusion. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations:

"However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. . . . When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used."

This opinion by Ortega is just that, opinion in his blog. It is not news. We do not really need to get into whether the Voice is "mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market" - another requirement of the section - the point is that it is opinion, not news. It would have little place in a non-BLP article; it has zero place in a BLP article. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy specifically allows this kind of thing as long as it is properly labeled as such and is from a high-quality news source. Both requirements are satisfied. BLP does not prohibit strong criticism, and to be NPOV an article must include criticism. Gamaliel (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got to side with Justallofthem on this one. WP:BLPN already has an opinion on this, and it's not in favor of Ortega's opinion being represented in this manner in this article. Emphasis added because I'm sure that were Ortega to write a news article instead of a personal opinion piece on the same subject matter, it would pass muster. But in this case, I just don't see the point of adding it. It certainly doesn't balance the article or provide anything new, and if there's need for criticism, it's already covered -- with appropriately neutral language -- in the details about the whole BBC incident. --GoodDamon 15:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I participated in that discussion and I don't recall any such declaration or consensus. The criticism in the BBC paragraph is irrelevant as it is a completely unrelated incident. Ortega's criticism speaks directly to the Roberts interview. Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the responding editor at WP:BLPN, but now I see I didn't read the whole thing. OK. In any event, I still don't think it belongs. Mr. Ortega's commentary, even if technically coming from a reliable source, adds nothing to the article that isn't already covered -- in better quality, no less. --GoodDamon 16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me where this is covered in the article? I see very little criticism in the article and, aside from Ortgea's comment, no comments about the subject's use of the media. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Davis' comment was part of a not-very-notable interview and even choosing that bit out of the entire interview constitutes WP:OR. If the interview is notable then the entire interview should be reported. Then add to that a non-notable opinion and you have an unacceptable WP:BLP issue. The comment was not notable and Ortega's opinion even less so. Ortega's opinion is not notable because no-one except the online critic community noted it. For comparison, compare the issue of Drew Pinsky's comment on Tom Cruise and the reply by Cruise's people. That is an example of a notable exchange. Noted by mainstream media. Big big difference. Wikipedia is in danger of manufacturing notability for Ortega's comment and that is the tail wagging the dog. Unacceptable. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Village Voice is a reputable news organization. Readers may choose to agree with the opinion they published; they may choose to disagree. They should not be deprived of the opportunity because "Justallofthem" (how many usernames has this guy gone through) doesn't like it and doesn't mind misrepresenting policy in order to try and sneak it out. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Davis' comment was certainly notable. He is a church spokesperson, and given his comment he was either 1) lying or 2) has not reached OT III and is unaware of the Body Thetan beliefs which are part of the core of Scientology dogma. It is indeed appropriate to include Ortega's counter-comment to Davis' misinformation. Neverwake (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would lean towards losing the CNN paragraph and Ortega's opinion. Jayen466 22:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would lean against it. AndroidCat (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

CNN, The Village Voice, KESQ-TV, The Village Voice

1) CNN interview of Davis by John Roberts:

“ Roberts: “There are some people, and one of them is a correspondent for the Village Voice, who says the basic tenet of the Church of Scientology is to rid the body of space-alien parasites, to clear oneself.”

Davis: “Well, John, does that sound silly to you? I mean it’s unrecognizable to me.”

” — Roberts, John (May 8, 2008). "Scientologists decry threats: CNN's John Roberts talks to a Scientology spokesman who says an anonymous group is terrorizing the church". CNN. Retrieved 2009-03-13.

2) The Village Voice:

“ CNN’s John Roberts this morning, trying to get a typically squirrelly Scientology spokesman, Tommy Davis, to answer some basic questions about L. Ron Hubbard’s outfit...

Roberts: “There are some people, and one of them is a correspondent for the Village Voice, who says the basic tenet of the Church of Scientology is to rid the body of space-alien parasites, to clear oneself.”

Davis: “Well, John, does that sound silly to you? I mean it’s unrecognizable to me.”

The shout-out from CNN makes us feel warm and fuzzy (even if he’s talking about the ed-in-chief and not a “correspondent”), and we’ll also point out that the space-alien nature of Hubbard’s wacky upper-level “OT” materials isn’t something that just a few of us “say” is the case. It’s been documented again and again over decades of court cases against Scientology. And every high-level Scientologist who “blows” (leaves) has the same exact story to tell.

” — Ortega, Tony (May 8, 2008). "Scientology Spokesman Gives Non-Answers on CNN". Runnin' Scared. The Village Voice. Retrieved 2009-03-13.

3) KESQ-TV:

“ Nathan Baca: Somebody from the Village Voice apparently said the Church of Scientology is about "ridding the body of space alien parasites." And your reaction then and now is what exactly to that claim? ” — Baca, Nathan (March 12, 2009). "Scientology Official Addresses Works of L. Ron Hubbard". KESQ-TV. www.kesq.com. Retrieved 2009-03-13.

4) The Village Voice:

“ Our favorite part, naturally, was the episode in which a KESQ reporter made reference to the Voice as he was grilling one of our favorite Scientology tools, Tommy Davis, a church spokesman and son of actress Anne Archer.

KESQ's Nathan Baca asked Davis, "Somebody from the Village Voice apparently said the Church of Scientology is about 'ridding the body of space alien parasites.' And your reaction then and now is exactly to that claim?"

” — Ortega, Tony (March 13, 2009). "Scientology Gets Its Ass Kicked In the Desert". Runnin' Scared. The Village Voice. Retrieved 2009-03-13.

Cirt (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

"Being revoked of his medication"? I think this is ungrammatical. The medication is revoked, not the person, who is "denied" medication. 86.138.66.180 (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Further, it is unclear. Did his parents discontinue his medication? Did the Church of Scientology remove his medication from the Travolta's house? Did a Scientology doctor or therapist or whatever recommend his medication be discontinued? First, someone needs to clarify what this is trying to say, then it needs to be reworded appropriately.Dougom (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyedited it. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Davis responds to St. Petersburg Times

St. Petersburg Times audio of interview with Davis

• Childs, Joe (June 21, 2009). "Scientology: Church's response video". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2009-06-23. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

St. Petersburg Times article quoting Davis

• Childs, Joe (June 21, 2009). "Scientology: The Truth Rundown, Part 1 of 3 in a special report on the Church of Scientology". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2009-06-23. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Response to Davis from Jason Beghe

• Ortega, Tony (June 22, 2009). "Tom Cruise Lured Back Into Scientology By Man The Church Now Says Was "Demoted" And A "Lunatic"". Runnin' Scared. The Village Voice. Retrieved 2009-06-23.

Cirt (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Notes and links

[1], [2], [3], [4]. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[5] Cirt (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[6]. Cirt (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources and poorly sourced info

Let us avoid primary sources and sources affiliated with the unreliable source, the Church of Scientology. -- Cirt (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Education

It would be interesting if someone could provide some information about Tommy Davis's educational background. 109.228.169.205 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

According to The New Yorker article, he attended Columbia University for one semester, dropped out of college to join Sea Org. --Karppinen (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

when scientology is so smart why thay thalk whis somebody i think thay must first think about the questions and that is not smart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.250.47 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Mrs. Davis' whereabouts

The article states that Mrs. Davis is also missing, but her wikipedia page doesn't make the same claim, which is odd. Also, according to this http://www.wilsongoldrick.com/agent_listings.php?id=47 it seems that she is a real estate agent in Austin, TX. Revanneosl (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Privacy issues

It seems like a privacy violation to state where Tommy Davis is currently living, when he's no longer acting as a public figure. There is not a reliable source for this, but just a personal blog (TonyOrtega.org). It's not really an important fact. He was notable for being a spokeperson for Scientology. Where he lives after leaving that post, doesn't seem notable. Unless it's our goal to help people physically locate this person, I don't see the purpose of including this fact. --Rob (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not the head of Celebrity Centre International

The tabloid media (including tabloid bio writers like Andrew Morton) often listed Davis as the "head" of Celebrity Centre International. As Lawrence Wright and other far more reliable sources (Janet Reitman, Hugh Urban, etc) have reported, however, this is completely false. He was in a subordinate position to the President of Celebrity Centre Int, and both the posts of President and Vice-President (currently held by Shane Woodruff) are purely public relations positions. The actual "head" of Celebrity Centre is David Petit, who has held the post since the 1990s.

Again, there is no excuse for using tabloid and unreliable sources when authors like Wright, Reitman, Urban, Kent, et al have done actual research and report the basic facts. Laval (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tommy Davis (Scientology). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517112524/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/05/jason_beghe_to.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/05/jason_beghe_to.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918112226/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/09/jason_beghe_is.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/09/jason_beghe_is.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)