Talk:Freedom (magazine)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Magazines Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article. Scientology Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does anybody have any good non-church sources for this article? Seems difficult to meet NPOV with purely internal sources. Micahmedia (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point, I will look for some secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for deleting the stub tags, as this article is no longer a stub.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies way too heavily on primary sources, and sources directly affiliated with the article's subject organization and affiliate organizations. I note that this concern has been raised previously, above. Cirt (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for this article are 1) National Federation of Press Women, 2) Freedom (a primary source), 3) DeRose-Hinkhouse Awards site, 4) The Mineola American, 5) International Freedom (another primary source) 6) Fletcher Prouty's JFK, and 7) Dorothy Globbe.

Two out of seven are affiliated with Freedom magazine. Did I miss one? The primary sources tag should be removed.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the JFK cite a source or just the book itself? Cirt (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the references, so it's a cite, right? Since 'JFK' was originally published in Freedom, it could be considered affiliated with it. S. M. Sullivan (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on finding a secondary source for this, shouldn't be too hard if this is the case. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the L. Fletcher Prouty obit from the Guardian, a British newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2001/jun/22/guardianobituaries

It mentions the publication of Prouty's book in Freedom magazine.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the note in the book, it checks out okay. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed the links on the Awards section so that they linked to primary sources instead of NFPW and Religion Communcators site. I will restore the section and the original links, and put this article on my watchlist.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links in the Awards subsection were appropriate. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. http://www.nfpw.org/competitions.htm = simpliy a link to the main page of the "National Federation of Press Women: Competitions" = not a secondary source, not WP:V for this info, either.
2. http://www.freedommag.org/index.html = simply a link to the main page of Freedom Magazine. How is this helpful here???
3. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/story/rescue?SourceUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketwatch.com%2Fstory%2Fscientology-magazine-earns-religion-communicators-council = story not found.

Cirt (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the Awards section as i was adding the link to the Duplessis orphans article. Here it is.

http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol38i/page18.htm

I strongly urge you to stop editing this article until tomorrow. I've gotten the edit clash message twice now. Someone deleted the original link to two of my references and changed others so they were no good. What do you think will happen if an impartial observer takes a look at the history of this article?S. M. Sullivan (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's avoid using primary sources to the organization itself, in its claims that it received "Awards". Cirt (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is an award from the NFPW or the RCC an "award"?S. M. Sullivan (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Here is another link which shows the names of the 2006 NFPW Winners:http://www.nfpw.org/competitions.htm S. M. Sullivan (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Here is a link which shows the Religion Communicators Site, one of the groups that gave Freedom mag an award. http://www.religioncommunicators.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=70674 The memberclicks ref that you deleted is from the Religion Communicators site:[reply]

http://data.memberclicks.com/site/recc/2009%20DeRose-Hinkhouse%20Award%20Winners.pdf

"Certificates of Merit: Will Hall, Jewish Folk Singer to Christian Matriarch, Baptist Press

Tom Whittle, Psychiatric Screening: Destroying Lives for Profit, Freedom Magazine, Church of Scientology"

How is the RCC not a reliable source for data about awards that they themselves have given?S. M. Sullivan (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find this information on this site. Further, is this even a notable award? Has it received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject?? Cirt (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection Awards Received tagged as {{POV-section}} - the "Awards Received" claimed are non-notable in nature, and the sources used are dubious at best. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A week ago, I added the reference for the Religion Communicators Council "award" here. You should note that this is the source provided by the RCC ontheir own website (scroll down to links). More important, though, is how nothing of an award it is. It wasn't even a larger "Award of Excellence" but a minor "Certificate of Merit". These awards are given for Public Relations work and only given to the paid members of the organization. In 2009, the RCC gave 102 of them to a membership of only about 500 members, so annually, 20 percent of them received one. Frankly, it would be more notable if, at some point, a member had never received one of these so-called awards. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is a non-notable award given out without much stringency and is not worthy of mention in this article. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the awards are not notable, then how notable is the quote from two POV-pushing anticult crusaders (Eugene V. Gallagher and W. Michael Ashcraft)?S. M. Sullivan (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing anticult crusaders, says who? These are WP:RS, secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gallagher and Ashcraft book series received excellent reviews as a scholarly resource and, despite your opinion, was actually lauded for its "inclusive stance on alternative faiths." (Library Journal) These aren't exactly POV-pushers. The only real problem with the analysis section is the heading and lack of information. It should be titled Criticism. I'm changing the title and expanding the information there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.freedommag.org/

  Triggered by \bfreedommag\.org\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed This was resolved a while ago. The "index.html" page has been whitelisted specifically for use at this article. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2015/08#freedommag.org for more. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was interesting, I had never examined this page very closely, but I have to agree with Slashme's removal of some profoundly disturbing, unwarranted content. I checked some of the Scientology organization's proclaimed references which were discussed in the more actionable "Freedom Magazine" articles consisting of core slander and libel, and yes, they are outrageous. Edward F. Mazur book about massive government conspiracies being used to some how "prove" legitimacy for Scientology's libelous allegations against Time Magazine have no place in Wikipedia.

We have guidelines for WP:BLP and some of those guidelines need to be applied for living persons in articles such as this one, not only for actual living humans but also for corporate entities like Time Magazine. Last thing Wikipedia needs is victims of Scientology's core human rights and civil rights violations suing the Wikipedia Foundation and individual editors for outrageous, actionable content! Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]