Talk:Ursula Caberta

Citations

This article needs to be expanded with additional citations from reputable secondary sources. I will get to this at some point soon... Smee 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Caberta has repeatedly come under fire ...

Better sources are needed than these, or this material will have to come out, per WP:BLP. Most preferably, for example, secondary sourced citations as opposed to primary sources... Smee 21:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Why do you think BLP has anything to do with it? The CoS released that press release far and wide, to media and the government, so it's a matter of public record now. It doesn't violate BLP to use it as a source. wikipediatrix 21:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the link you provided does not state where the information was printed, if it was printed, in a secondary source. Secondly, if the information came from the CoS, this is certainly not reliable in this particular case. And thirdly, if this info stays in the article, it will be with the caveat that this was all alleged by the CoS, for proper attribution. Smee 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Are you speaking of Gerry Armstrong's copy of the press release, or the original? You seem to be saying that whatever Caberta says about Scientology is reliable and you get to spray her opinions all over Wikipedia, and yet you don't consider Scientology a reliable source for their own position about Caberta?? Come on, Smee. The article doesn't make a POV judgment against Caberta, or say that the Scientologists are right, it simply notes that she has come under fire for accusations of anti-Scientology corruption - which she has. wikipediatrix 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, be more polite. Thanks. No, what I am saying is that statements that Caberta may have made, which were then reprinted in reputable secondary sources - are reputable. However, allegations made about a living person by the CoS, through a "press release", if the said press release was not printed in a reputable secondary source - are not, and violate WP:RS and most certainly WP:BLP. Smee 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Okay, you have answered the question to my satisfaction: you have essentially admitted that you want Caberta's statements in the article but you don't want the CoS' officially-released side of the story in the article. Thank you. wikipediatrix 00:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes - If the CoS statements were only released in their own press release, and not published in reputable secondary sources - and if Caberta's statements were published in reputable secondary citable sources, that is correct. Smee 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

The Sabine Weber letter is hardly what I would consider a "reliable source", nor is the "Menschenrechtsbüro" ("Office for human rights") of scientology - unless it is about what scientology claims. And then there is WP:BLP. --Tilman 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted and to be applied on non-RS anti-Scientology sites. There is a German page at www.menschenrechtsbuero.de (Office for Human Rights?) which seems to have a list of legal cases Caberta was involved in. Could you provide an idea what this is about? After all this article is a pure German matter pulled up by the suspected SPA called like.liberation and nevertheless you seem to be the only German around. Makoshack 18:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, like this "reliable" one [1] which tells that Caberta was sued by a scientologist. What it doesn't tell is that the lawsuit was later dismissed by the court: the scientologist had a scientologist attorney, who sued not only in the wrong court, but also in the wrong country. This could be added in the article :)

What is an "SPA" ? --Tilman 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated above, I agree with Tilman here. These 2 sources should be removed from the article. They both clearly violate WP:RS, and thus also violate WP:BLP. They should be replaced with reputable secondary sourced citations, if available. Smee 22:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

The burden of proof applies to the person who wishes to put it in. I do not, I only correct the most obvious falsehoods. Currently, it's poorly sourced and should be deleted per WP:BLP until one of the people who wants to insert it, comes up with a reliable source.

Obviously, scientology isn't a reliable source. For example, scientology claims that she was investigated for bribery ("Bestechung"), while she was only investigated accepting a favour ("Vorteilsnahme"). The difference is that the first is accepting money for something legal, the second is accepting money for something illegal.

Btw, LSI John insists that this 5 year old dismissed case is relevant for Youth for Human Rights International. --Tilman 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Removed as poorly sourced, per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Smee 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

German Wikipedia

Can information and reputable secondary sourced citations from the German version of this article be utilized to expand this version, and vice versa? Smee 22:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

The current german version is properly sourced, and is not libellous. I don't know if the contents (e.g. her party affiliations) are of interest to the english public. I don't really have the time to translate it... here in wikipedia, I mostly try to correct stuff and remove POV. --Tilman 05:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I just thought that if there were more information in other citations over there that could be brought over here... Smee 05:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Mistake in Dates

The article states "Ursula Caberta y Diaz (born 1950) is the Commissioner for the Scientology Task Force of the Hamburg Interior Authority. She graduated in political economy in 1950." Please note that her date of birth and the date of her receiving a degree in political economy are the same.Azawalli 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I took it out (there is more references for her birth date than for her education). Makoshack 17:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Caberta falls for con artist Christian Markert

On my recent additions I am collecting translations on this story, here are two to start with:

(21 August 2007, SWR website at 11:45am)

Scientology experts deceived by con man

According to SWR information, the supposedly high-ranking dropout of Scientology is a notorious con man. The man was presented to the media by sect experts as a longstanding member of Scientology with secret insider knowledge.

In June this year Christian Markert contacted German authorities in the USA. The 36 year old supposedly seven-year member of Scientology with secret insider knowledge was helped getting out of the organisation.

Shortly later Ursula Caberta (head of the Task Force Scientology, TFS, in Hamburg) presented the man in an event about Scientology to the Berlin CDU faction. Before that the Hamburg ministry of interior had the man flown into Germany. Up to this day Markert is assisted by the TFS as top dropout of Scientology. Market had said to have been a member of Scientology´s interal “intelligence service” called Office of Special Affairs.

In jail for fraud

According to investigation by SWR the 36 year old man was noted many times as a con man; the supposed dropout was even sentenced therefore several times. In the late 1990s he was in prison. The data about his life history are that much contradictory in itself that a longstanding membership and high-ranking duty in Scientology seem to be impossible. In an interview with SWR he said to have studied in the USA in the late 1990s when he became a Scientologist. He claims to have been rapidly appointed member of the inner circle of executives for his talents. Finally he would had been sent to Ireland where he “more or less was head of the Dublin mission”. Meanwhile a speaker of the Irish police confirmed that Markert is currently wanted for theft in Ireland.

Markert gave interviews to “Focus”, ARD, ZDF and other media. The Baden-Wuerttemberg Office for Protection of the Constitution (internal secret service), too, questioned him for several days and was convinced about the correctness of his data to a great extent. When confronted with SWR´s investigations the Office for Protection of the Constitution meanwhile declared that Markert´s information “are considered with caution”.

Voluntarily into psychiatry

But Markert not only deceived sect experts and authorities but also artists. In 2004 he planned the a musical gala with two dozens of performers and rented 40 halls throughout Germany. One staff became suspicious when he showed off to have been on stage even with Glen Close and reported him to the criminal police for fraud which then stopped the whole tour. According to information of the staff’s attorneys he then went to Essen where he admitted himself to psychiatry, the staff said to SWR.

In a catalogue draft of the musical available to SWR, he called himself Chris Markert-Davis and claimed “to have performed as various leading characters in the musical productions of Phantom of the Opera, Sunset Boulevard, Les Miserables and The Beauty and the Beast. With the same photo as in the catalogue he praises himself as an counsellor for life and “doctor of psychology”. Since weeks Markert could not be reached for a comment.

(21 August 2007, SWR website at 7:37pm) Scientology expert dissociating from dropout

Head of the Task Force Scientology Ursula Caberta dissociated from a dropout of the sect who according to information of SWR he is a con man. The supposed “top Scientologist” had also been questioned by the Baden-Wuerttemberg Office for Protection of the Constitution.

She never would have said that 36 year old Christian Markert was a “top Scientologist”, Caberta said to ddp per research of SWR. However she admitted that “the man is assisted like any other dropout”. In a SWR interview in early July the Scientology expert had pointed out to the importance of dropouts for her work where she specifically referred to Markert who according to SWR is a supposed con man. He was presented to the media by sect experts as a longstanding member of Scientology with secret insider knowledge. In June this year Markert contacted German authorities in the USA. As supposedly seven-year member of Scientology with secret insider knowledge he was helped getting out of the organisation. Shortly later Ursula Caberta (head of the Task Force Scientology, TFS, in Hamburg) presented the man in an event about Scientology to the Berlin CDU faction. Before that the Hamburg ministry of interior had the man flown into Germany. Up to this day Markert is assisted by the TFS as top dropout of Scientology. Market had said to have been a member of Scientology´s internal “intelligence service” called Office of Special Affairs.

In jail for fraud

According to investigation by SWR the 36 year old man was noted many times as a con man; the supposed dropout was even sentenced therefore several times. In the late 1990s he was in prison. The data about his life history are that much contradictory in itself that a longstanding membership and high-ranking duty in Scientology seem to be impossible. In an interview with SWR he said to have studied in the USA in the late 1990s when he became a Scientologist. He claims to have been rapidly appointed member of the inner circle of executives for his talents. Finally he would had been sent to Ireland where he “more or less was head of the Dublin mission”. Meanwhile a speaker of the Irish police confirmed that Markert is currently wanted for theft in Ireland.

Markert gave interviews to “Focus”, ARD, ZDF and other media. The Baden-Wuerttemberg Office for Protection of the Constitution , too, questioned him for several days and was convinced about the correctness of his data to a great extent. When confronted with SWR´s investigations the Office for Protection of the Constitution meanwhile declared that Markert´s information “are considered with caution”.

Voluntarily into psychiatry

But Markert not only deceived sect experts and authorities but also artists. In 2004 he planned the a musical gala with two dozens of performers and rented 40 halls throughout Germany. One staff became suspicious when he showed off to have been on stage even with Glen Close and reported him to the criminal police for fraud which then stopped the whole tour. According to information of the staff’s attorneys he then went to Essen where he admitted himself to psychiatry, the staff said to SWR.

In a catalogue draft of the musical available to SWR, he called himself Chris Markert-Davis and claimed “to have performed as various leading characters in the musical productions of Phantom of the Opera, Sunset Boulevard, Les Miserables and The Beauty and the Beast. With the same photo as in the catalogue he praises himself as an counsellor for life and “doctor of psychology”. Since weeks Markert could not be reached for a comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makoshack (talk • contribs) 04:17, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of a lot. Perhaps Christian Markert should have his own article? AndroidCat 17:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Kind of vague, isn't it?

"In 1995, Caberta took on an active role in controversies related to Scientology in schools in Bjerndrup near the German border". wikipediatrix 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First I'm straightening up the refs and probable blp. AndroidCat 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Under suspicion

"Caberta is under suspicion of corruption"? Under suspicion by whom? Freedom Magazine? Sounds like a WP:BLP violation, and should be removed. We should also give Market his own entry, leaving, at best, one sentence here.Like.liberation 11:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

She was indicted and paid a fine to settle the case. So the suspicion came from the Hamburg Prosecutor. But who knows, maybe he works for Scientology? Makoshack 22:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:BLP, you'll need non Church of Scientology sources from a neutral WP:RS 3rd party for that part, even for the indictment and fine. AndroidCat 05:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it was obviously reported in the media and one of the articles is included now. Makoshack 02:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you find more of those media stories. Is there no mention this in English-speaking press at all? Please read the WP:BLP policy—The Church of Scientology refs can't be used there. They could be used to present the (clearly marked as such) point of view of the Church of Scientology, but otherwise, they aren't reliable sources. Under BLP, those refs have to go. Then, the unrefed section had to go as well until proper refs could be found. (WP:BLP and Jimbo specifically advise against leaving the text and tagging with {{fact}}. WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material)

Christian Markert

The Christian Markert show. This section is very awkward (especially in English). It begins with an OR conclusion mildly connected to Caberta, and then rambles all over the place with speculation about a person or persons named Christian Markert, Christian MARKERT-DAVIES, etc. It's unclear how much of all of this is really supported by the sources and how much is a synthesis. I suggest that you boil it down to point form, and rewrite it up from there. If you won't and persist in removing the tags, then there are various arbitration processes, especially for bio articles. AndroidCat 12:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Show"? As far as I understand this Christian Markert is an individual who claimed to be a Scientologist while being a known and proven fraud long before Ms. Caberta decided to sponsor and use him as a witness against Scientology. In the end he turned out as a fake Scientologist. This indeed could be material for a thriller. I took pains to find more reliable sources and aside from a lot of blogs or audio files with the radio show could find more references of the required quality. I would say by now each sentence of this paragraph is backed up by at least one or two references. Makoshack 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence on the Markert episode was redundant and had a biasing angle: "In 2007, Caberta found herself explaining her support of an alleged con-man and ex-convict that was representing himself as a former high-ranking member of the Church of Scientology." The claim that the Hamburg Minister of Interior has anything to do with it is not sourced. Removed both.

The following statement that is still in the article is unsourced: "When confronted with SWR's investigations the Office for Protection of the Constitution declared that Markert's information “are considered with caution”." There is no evidence that Markert gave interviews to ARD or ZDF or "other media", except Focus.

Irrelevant references:

• The following references don't say anything about Caberta presenting or supporting Markert, so I removed them: Berliner Morgenpost Article 21 June 2007, CDU Party Berlin, Parlament im Blick 02/2007.
• This one is a dead link without enough information to find the article: SWR Radio, Article of 21 August 2007.
• This one is just a copy of the Morgenpost article: Die Auswartige Presse, 23 August 2007.
• This is a redundant copy of an already quoted DDP press release: ddp news agency, 21 August 2007.

Google doesn't find any more reliable sources on Markert's story being a scam than the Morgenpost tabloid and third-party copies of a DDP news wire... --EnOreg (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how the Markert paragraph is relevant to Caberta criticism. It should be removed. It is mostly about Markert, not about Caberta. It does not allege any wrongdoing by her, for example, that she knew of his alleged criminal record. If she didn't know, then she isn't to blame! I see no criticism of Caberta, despite the segment being named "criticism of Caberta". The only link is that she presented Markert at a panel discussion.

What is much more interesting is that scientology has hired Markert for the sea org, while knowing all the things that they accused Markert of having done, shortly after the panel. But that, too, isn't relevant to this article.

If this doesn't get removed, I will report this issue to the WP:BLP inquisition. And we know all that their decision are often unexpected and tragic. Note also that my comments are not meant to be an endorsement of Markert. (See my questions/comments in his bizarre "No wire hangersDon't you question me, ever!" video on youtube [2]) --Tilman (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tilman, welcome back. We got rules here, one of them saying do not use talk pages for your agenda. Please do so. 202.64.77.113 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What "agenda"? The point is that even if Markert has a "record", Caberta isn't related to it. Plus, scientology confirmed that he is a former member. They'll know why they hired someone despite him having filled out the standard life history form. --Tilman (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of rules, "202.64.77.113", I see that you not only re-added material previously discussed and removed, but you slipped in the Church of Scientology defamation site religiousfreedomwatch.org as a reference. You should know better than that. AndroidCat (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientology members harass Ursula Caberta

A video shows how some members of the cult harass Ursula Caberta at the airport: http://mediathek.daserste.de/daserste/servlet/content/1407418?pageId=&moduleId=799280&categoryId=&goto=1&show= Пипумбрик (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ursula Caberta/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.

*Article needs expansion with additional citations from reputable secondary sources, image... Smee 12:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 12:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Scientology classification

An editor removed the Scientology classification without explanation. I have restored it. If there is a good reason to remove it, please discuss it here in Talk: Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not remove any "classification". I removed a template. It also wasn't without explanation. I gave a reason in the edit summary: WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Try reading that guideline, and things will probably clear up. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

She is still categorized as a critic of Scientology. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Next time discuss your proposed changes to any article that covers Scientology. You might want to brush up on proper editor behavior on Wikipedia before you proceed with other edits. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)