Lisa McPherson

= Jeff Jacobsen =

Jeff Jacobsen has released the text of http://www.lisamcpherson.org/ under the GFDL, so that can be cut n pasted here to continue working on - 12:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

= Categorization =

An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio.

== Category:Scientology ==

Anyone think that maybe the category Scientologists is a bit strange considering her story I don t mean to insinuate that we censor Wikipedia because of people s feelings toward an issue, but being murdered by Scientologists would seem to move one spiritually away from such an organization. I m going to change the category to Scientology for now for accuracy, but I d like to see what others think on this issue. -- 03:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

:You re claiming a dead person has renounced their religion after their death 01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Sorry, I made a mistake. After she was brutalized, she renounced scientology.-- 17:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) :Until such time as we have a 23:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Thank you for your opinion.

::But, until that time, 01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:: : :: Let s not sprinkle the article with victims of Scientology

::I suggest the same should apply to Category:Scientology.-- 01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Poor extrapolation from an article to a category. A category reflects everything in that category; an article reflects an overview of that subject. It is perfectly reasonable in the context of an article to trim back or move to its own article a list that is ballooning out of proportion, whether that be a list of a group s adherents, a list of a group s victims, a list of a group s critics, a list of facts, or whatever. There is really no comparable argument to be made for removing people from a category.

:::In the meantime, I ve followed your own lead: Like L. Ron Hubbard, Lisa McPherson has a significance to the subject of Scientology that goes beyond and in her case outweighs the significance of her being a member before her death, making it relevant to place her in 12:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::It doesn t make any sense to have a category and one of it s sub-categories both on one page. Lisa McPherson relates to scientology in the larger sense because she is so often used as the poster girl for criticism toward clams, while a list of scientologists would seem to be of a more minor interest for those interested in scientology at large.-- 17:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

::::POV...

::: POV what It s a talk page, designed for POV.-- 23:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

== Category:Scientologists ==

15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Yeah, but it ended badly between the two. I don t they reconciled in Xenu-Heaven, either. I don t have a problem with former scientologists being listed under the Scientologist cat (a former cat would make more sense but it s a minor quibble), it s just that this article relates more to scientology as a topic; it doesn t contribute to scientologists as much.-- 15:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

::TheGrza, I disagree. IMHO, presenting Lisa in the main category serves a POV. Besides, categorization as you suggest is contrary to wikipolicy.-- 22:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with 22:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I think we have to look at why there is a Lisa McPherson article in the first place. There have been millions of people in the history of the world killed by some religious sect or another, both from within and without. The vast majority don t have articles because their influence as martyrs to a system or as practitioners of a religion is insignificant to the larger society. McPherson s article appears because it is often cited as the most heinous, vile, tragic, insane thing Scientology has ever done. Whether true or not, her death is a mantra for anti-clam groups, while her life never really affected society on a large scale. For this reason, her life as a scientologist is not the point of the article, but the article exists to detail her murder and the subsequent use of her death as scientology criticism. Whew. I m having a hard time seeing why it is either inaccurate or highly POV , or how this conversation has been resolved to the point that you re reverting edits and claiming that the talk page will bear you out in some way.-- 23:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

::No. For one thing, what do you mean by [McPherson] is often cited as the most heinous, vile, tragic, insane thing Scientology has ever done. There are too many lies and rumors out there, Scientology was not at fault for her death. If you think her death is a mantra for the scientolgy critics, then you can categorize it accordingly.-- 2 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

:::I think he answered what do you mean quite succinctly, AI. Whether true or not, her death is a mantra for anti-clam groups, while her life never really affected society on a large scale. It might be your POV that Scientology was not at fault in the death of Lisa McPherson, but just as 2 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

::::Irrelevant ad hominem.-- 2 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

:::::Incorrect, again. You really shouldn t go past your misunderstoods, AI. Ad hominem is when a person s personal characteristics or personal situation is cited to suggest that this makes their position incorrect. To point out a case where someone [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Tin-foil_hat&diff=15321571&oldid=15320782 attempted] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Tin-foil_hat&diff=15322225&oldid=15321812 twice] to speedy-delete an article which met none of the criteria for speedy deletion, and suggest that everything those efforts indicate about that person s grasp of Wikipedia policy should be taken into account, is not ad hominem . -- 3 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Lisa McPherson was a Scientologist and this article belongs in 2 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)

:I see it has now been added to 3 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)