Talk:Keith Henson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keith Henson article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

An individual covered in this article, Keith Henson, has edited Wikipedia as Hkhenson (talk • contribs).

authoronlinesource

Contents 1 Need info 2 Disputed 2.1 Evidence 2.1.1 Keith Henson the bomb expert 2.1.2 Keith Henson convicted of copyright violation 2.1.3 Keith Henson in contempt of court 2.1.4 The repudiated accusation that Keith Henson molested his children 2.1.5 Keith Henson the fugitive from US Justice 2.1.6 Canada: Keith Henson excluded from refugee status 2.1.7 Discussion of alleged crimes 2.2 Modemac's "obscure California law" 2.3 1971 Supreme Court decision 2.4 Revert of talk page 2.5 Still POV 2.6 Explosives expert 3 Henson's arrest in Canada by armed police 4 Keith Henson deported from Canada! 5 Henson leaving Canada 6 Rm section 7 "Dead Agent" accusations against Henson 8 Religious Freedom Watch Links 9 Druid Days 10 Cryonics 11 Keith Henson arrested? 12 Protection 13 Striping references and fact-bombing 13.1 huh? 14 Resolving merge 15 This article is basically unreferenced and an original research essay 16 Improper and misleading use of referencing 17 Call me a pedant...

[edit] Need info

I read Usenet postings of people who bitterly accused Henson of forgery. Very ridiculous is also his belief in being able to multipy his body in space! I pray for his sanity. May the Heavenly Father enlighten his head. User Saint

There's a hell of a lot more interesting stuff to Keith's life than this ... anyone got bio info/sources? - David Gerard 15:36, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are some posts he made to the SL4 mailing list. Here is a link to the SL4 mailing list archive: http://sl4.org/archive/ He started posting here in February, 2004. Click on the month you want, then click on the "sorted by: [author]" link to find his posts faster.--205.200.57.177

No mention of the "Tom Cruise Missile" fiasco? .--PHiZ

There should be mention of his work with Alcor, including his involvement with the freezing of Dora Kent's head. .--Jim Lippard July 24, 2005

Feel free to add that to the article, provided it is true. --AI 22:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Added his articles. --Irmgard 11:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

This article is biased in favor of Keith Henson.--AI 2 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that-- simply because the accusations made in some of the links weren't mentioned at all in the article. I don't claim to know anything about the topic, but I think all points of view ought to be mentioned. ekedolphin July 4, 2005 05:41 (UTC)

Well, that presumes that the accusations made in all of the links are all credible or widely-represented enough to justify repeating them here, which is by the nature of the Internet unlikely to be true. =) I mean, someone added an external link to Melissa Joan Hart to an article that claimed that Joss Whedon based the character of Buffy the Vampire Slayer on Hart, because he thought she was the "Chosen One" who would stop the bullying in the Sayville, New York public schools system. Did that mean the article was incomplete for not including that? No, it meant that the external links needed trimming. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 4 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Is what unlikely to be true? --AI 5 July 2005 09:48 (UTC)

One thing is certain: the introduction mentions all kinds of things about Keith but the body of the article only focuses on Keith vs. Scientology. (POV) --AI 01:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Feel free to investigate the following information and relate it into the article.--AI 5 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Henson the bomb expert

"We look on the Internet, and he's [Keith Henson] a self-proclaimed bomb expert." -- Toronto Police Fugitive Squad Detective Phil Glavin.
--AI 5 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate or useful source. A useful source would be to find the text on the Internet where Keith Henson proclaims that he is a bomb expert (if such a thing does exist) and cite that in the context of "self-proclaimed bomb expert". A police statement is said once and never edited or retracted. The reason that reputable sources are emphasized in Verifiability is due to their reviewed and edited nature. The assumption is that they've spent time trying to verify and correct what it is they're writing. ChrisLawson 18:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This a quote about Keith Henson from the author Ed Regis in his book "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition; Science Slightly Over The Edge":

"But he knew how to do it, of course, and so he took a two-hundred-pound lard can and put three pieces of primacord inside, looping them around so they completely covered the bottom. Then he poured the ammonium nitrate into the can, inserted sticks of dynamite all around the perimeter, and ran the primacord fuse up to a blasting cap on top of it all. The cap would fire the primacord, which in turn would set off the dynamite, which would crush the mass of ammonium nitrate until the necessary pressure was reached - a true implosion device, just like the atom bomb." -- "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition; Science Slightly Over The Edge" by Ed Regis, p.50.

--AI 5 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

WHY are contributors censoring reference to Keith's bomb expertise in their reverts? --AI 01:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It is correct to censor such a general statement. Bomb expert can, especially today, not be put a standalone item to be NPOV, it needs to be qualified. If you say "X is a bomb expert and has voiced strong convictions against the pope" this sounds as if X plans to blow the pope up. If the stuff is put in the correct context "X works as a specialist in an army laboratory developing methods for defusing bombs and is as an elder of the Southern Baptist church strongly opposed to the papal primacy." it is made clear that his bomb expertise and his religious convictions have nothing to do with each other and no one is suspecting X of criminal intentions against the pope.

To say "According to Toronto Police, there exists information in the internet that Henson is a self proclaimed bomb expert." is also no real qualification (has even a touch of Weasel) because such information should be accessible and then be directly used in an encyclopedia, rather than quoting the very vague statement of the police officer (primary sources, where possible).

"Author Ed Regis describes how Henson demonstrated building a bomb.." That's correct, as far as it goes and gives the primary source, but to be NPOV, it should also be said in which context Henson made this demonstration and maybe also why Henson is mentioned in the book - it's a very big difference, if such expertise is demonstrated for fun by a student of physics to his fellow students in the laboratory or by an instructor in an Al Qaida camp. Put in context, I'm sure no one will censor the information. --Irmgard 09:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I might just leave the wording up to others. --AI 12:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I tossed the line "Henson would sometimes dispose of the leftovers--later leading to rediculous claims." [1] because of the spelling, and because it's a forward reference to something that's never resolved, much less explained. Just confusing. -Dave

[edit] Keith Henson convicted of copyright violation

"Upon the decision of the court entered on April 15, 1997 granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and upon the unanimous verdict of the jury published on May 12, 1998, final judgment is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff Religious Technology Center and against defendant H. Keith Henson that said defendant willfully infringed plaintiff's copyrighted work known as NOTs 34, and that said defendant shall pay to plaintiff the sum $75,000 in statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 (c). Defendant is also permanently enjoined from engaging in infringing activities as set forth in the court's permanent injunction dated June 16, 1997 and amended order on ex parte motion for emergency relief dated April 27, 1998." - United States District Judge Ronald M. Whyte. --AI 5 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Henson in contempt of court

"On June 22, 1999 this court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law finding defendant in civil contempt and awarding $7,500 in attorney's fees. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that H. Keith Henson is adjudged in civil contempt and shall pay plaintiff Religious Technology Center the sum of $7,500 towards its attorney's fees incurred." -- United States District Judge Ronald M. Whyte, June 22, 1999 --AI 5 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

[edit] The repudiated accusation that Keith Henson molested his children

"$6,000 since May 1981 includes operation and four-day hospital stay [daughter's name]; ... psychological counseling for [two daughter's names] as a result of father's sexual molestation of them." -Carolyn Meinel in a signed affidavit of medical expenses in 1982 divorce proceedings between Keith Henson and Carolyn Meinel. --AI 5 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)

Okay, a description of this little incident is now included in the article. Therefore, it is more NPOV.  :) --Modemac 12:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I edited your contribution. The Henson's legal divorce papers are not cancelled by a Carolyn's usenet posting. Neither are they cancelled by her recent support of Keith. Also, he was not prosecuted or even accused as a request from Carolyn provided that Keith get counseling. --AI 03:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Prove it. So far, the entire content of the "child molesting" accusation consists of that one single sentence taken from the legal filing. Since you apparently have access to more than this ("a request from Carolyn"), then please post it or provide a direct reference to it. I never said her Usenet posting "cancelled" her divorce papers -- rather, Carolyn herself posted a message stating that "Scientologists are liars." Do you object to that? --Modemac 07:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Is she really the poster of the usenet article where she repudiates her statement and calls Scientologists bad liars. I tried to verify the email address used for the posting and found several other articles written from the same address.[2] Are those postings really from Carolyn? Who knows, it doesn't really matter because the legal affidavit was REALLY SIGNED BY CAROLYN. If she chooses later to contradict her legally signed statement, that is her problem. Who's the liar? If she lied about the medical expenses in a legal document, I'm sure she would have no problem lying in *ALT*. --AI 23:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

And if the Church would frame Paulette Cooper to make it look like she was a fanatic bomber who had threatened violence to the Church of Scientology, I'm sure they would have no problem framing other critics on similar bogus charges. Which makes it interesting that you're clearly very interested in any accusation that's ever been made to tarnish the reputation of Henson but by your own admission you don't care if those accusations are later repudiated by the accuser, casting great question on their trustworthiness. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's not generalize, ok Antaeus? You are talking about the alleged framing perpetrated by some individuals. Whether or not their actions were ordered or approved by superiors, their actions were contrary to Scientology policy and any superiors who gave orders or approved such actions are not following Scientology policy. --AI 01:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Which makes you wonder how the Church of Scientology can ever fulfill its grandiose promise of a world without crime when it can't even deliver on the more modest promise of 'the Church of Scientology will not itself commit crimes'. Yeah, I've heard the excuse before that anyone committing crimes is automatically not following Scientology policy; it's a pretty feeble response, isn't it? How exactly does Scientology expect to get the whole world to start obeying Scientology policy and stop committing crimes when it can't get, oh, let's see, the second in command of the whole business to stay within the law? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Lets take a closer scrutiny of your actions. You revert my changes[3] which basically removed my mention of Keith's bomb expertise and restored the link to Arnie Lerma's POV. Why didn't you explain those changes as you claim in the history comment: for reasons explained on talk page. You are not acting in good faith. --AI 02:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Why did Carolyn make a legal statement in a signed affidavit and then later recant it in *ALT* of all places? Which of her statements is true? Which of her statements is LEGAL. --AI 01:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again: Prove it. Tell us *exactly* what is written on this legal statement that the so called "Religious Freedom Watch" claims is Carolyn asking her husband to be arrested. Give an exact quote from this legal filing, if you have it. --Modemac 09:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Subgenius ;) , what is this, some kind of spin? YOU prove that Carolyn asked Keith to be arrested for the molestation. I never made that claim, so you prove that part because you are suggesting it. And YOU prove that I suggested it anywhere. --AI 20:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Right up above, you state: "I edited your contribution. The Henson's legal divorce papers are not cancelled by a Carolyn's usenet posting. Neither are they cancelled by her recent support of Keith. Also, he was not prosecuted or even accused as a request from Carolyn provided that Keith get counseling. --AI 03:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)" Where is your reference for this claim? Once again, prove it. --Modemac 20:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand your dispute. The reference is Henson's divorce case file which I currently do not have access to. --AI 12:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Henson the fugitive from US Justice

PROTESTER IS SUBJECT TO ARREST
The Press-Enterprise
Thursday, May 17, 2001
BY Erin D. Randolph

"A man convicted in April of oppressing Scientologists because of their religion has fled to Canada to apply for political refugee status, the man said Wednesday.

"Keith Henson, 58, of Palo Alto, was scheduled to be sentenced Wednesday morning in court but didn't show up. A judge immediately issued a warrant for his arrest."
--AI 5 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)

That doesn't say anything about Henson being a fugitive from US justice (which implies running away from a federal warrant). If there's a federal warrant I'd like to see a reference. Meanwhile I changed the description in the article to say there's a California warrant. 63.201.229.19 06:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canada: Keith Henson excluded from refugee status

"Under this definition [C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act I, Clause E] ...Henson's actions can be seen to be for a religious or ideological purpose. The actions could also be seen to be intentionally committed for the purpose of intimidating a segment of the public - the Church of Scientology. The threat to blow up the Church of Scientology and to kill the organization may be seen as a serious threat to cause death, bodily harm, and a risk to health or safety, property damage and/or a serious interference with an essential service so as to constitute terrorist activity." -- Counsel for the Department of Justice, Canada, Immigration Law Section. --AI 5 July 2005 10:05 (UTC)

"...there is extensive information which shows that Mr. Henson had engaged in many activities which would comprise other offences under the Criminal Code of Canada, namely:

81(1) using explosives;

82(1) possession of explosives without lawful excuse

176(1) obstructing or violence to clergyman

176(2) disturbing religious worship or certain meetings

181 spreading false news

264(1) criminal harassment

264.1(1)(a) utter death threats

265(1)(b) attempts/ threatens assault

318(1) advocating genocide

346(1) extortion

"The Minister's position is that the claimant's persistence, his single-mindedness exhibited against a particular group, the failure to cease harmful actions despite legal prohibitions, the impact statements of the members of the group, when viewed together, show that the claimant committed a serious, non-political crime prior to entering Canada. ... "The Minister's position is that, the specific nature of Mr. Henson's actions are such that they could be regarded as offences under Canadian criminal law, and their cumulative effect sufficiently egregious to warrant exclusion under F(b) of Article 1 of the Convention."

-- Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, March 20, 2002

--AI 5 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)

User:Modemac tried to censor the above information 5 July 2005, 05:02. [4] --AI 5 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

---

The Canadian Minister of Immigration routinely opposes refugee claims. A letter written by a lawyer for the Ministry sought to "exclude" Henson from consideration as a refugee claimant.

The letter made a number of unsupported allegations. The application to exclude Henson's claim was denied by the immigration adjudicator, and Henson's claim was allowed to go forward.

Including such a letter in Wikipedia without explanation is typical of the Scientology practice of "Acceptable Truth". It is true that the letter was written on behalf of the Minister of Immigration. It is true that the letter alleges that Henson "advocates genocide".

But it is also true that the letter was dismissed by the official it was addressed to, because the allegations are without substance. In accordance with the Doctrine of Acceptable Truth, these pertinent facts were omitted. 69.156.159.38 (talk • contribs)

Please include YOUR letter proving the immigration adjudicator denied the Canadian Minister of Immigration's request for exclusion. You accuse me of not providing something you also do not provide. At least I provided SOMETHING. Furthermore this article is about Keith Henson, his dispute with Scientology is his problem, not Scientology's. Of course you are free to disagree with me but don't expect me to simply agree with any arguments from Keith Henson or his supporting "cabal." --AI 00:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The quoted letter is an application to exclude Henson's claim. Henson's claim was not excluded. The claim's progress has been reported in Canadaian media. I will include an online reference when I can one. When you quoted the letter, you ommitted the pertinent facts that the Canadian Immigration Minister routinely opposes refugee claims (indeed, the Immigration Minister is the opposing party in the refugee process).

Your section title is also incorrect. Henson's claim was NOT excluded.

If you post incomplete, inaccurate, deliberately misleading data and you get called on it, that is not my problem. 69.156.159.38 (talk • contribs)

Innacurate or incomplate maybe, I am not perfect and I am not deliberately misleading. Thanks for your input. --AI 12:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of alleged crimes

Given (the founder of Scientology) Hubbard's claim that "we do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts" [5] and his suggestion that critics "may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." [6] I wouldn't be surprised if some or all of the above was completely made up. 33° 5 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)

That is a false document and not official church policy. If you insist on referring to Gerry Armstrong's website as a reference, I will take documentation his criminal past as a forger into Gerry Armstrong. This is not a threat, but necessary to discredit the document you are presenting which is coming from Gerry Armstrong and his associates. BTW Gerry is also a fugitive from U.S. justice.--AI 5 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

Oh of course, because all critics of Scientology are criminals. Jesus Christ. 33° 5 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Irrelevant ad hominem.--AI 6 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)

Come on then, what terrible crimes has he committed? 33° 6 July 2005 10:26 (UTC)

What don't you understand? --AI 7 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

I was asking you about Armstrong. 33° 7 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)

Take it to the Gerry Armstrong discussion page. You can create the article if you wish. --AI 7 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Keith Henson has been accused, charged, or convicted of many crimes as already mentioned above: copyright violation, contempt of court, child abuse (molestation), avoiding justice, using explosives, possession of explosives without lawful excuse, obstructing or violence to clergyman, disturbing religious worship or certain meetings, spreading false news, criminal harassment, uttering death threats, attempts/threatens assault, advocating genocide, extortion. --AI 7 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

And given that Henson is on hostile terms with the Church of Scientology, and given that the Church of Scientology has been known to not only accuse its critics of crimes it knows they didn't commit, but to actually frame them for crimes they didn't commit, the only fair and NPOV thing to do is to be very very careful indeed about separating those crimes of which Henson has been accused from those with which he has been charged from those of which he has been convicted. In fact, one of the charges against Keith Henson is "interfering with a religion" by a supposed "bomb expert", a point the CoS hammers on at every opportunity. Doesn't that sound suspiciously close to the bomb threats, "threats against a Church", that the Church of Scientology got Paulette Cooper indicted for -- and which were later proven to be just another CoS frame-up? -- Antaeus Feldspar 7 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)

Quit wasting my time Antaeus, my references are from Canadian officials, not the Church of Scientology. --AI 7 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

I'll just bet. Your references about Paulette Cooper would have been from American officials, before American officials found out from the FBI that the whole thing was a frame-up engineered by the CoS from start to finish. -- Antaeus Feldspar 8 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

Again, what are you talking about? Where did I provide references about Paulette Cooper? I said quit wasting my time. --AI 8 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

Wow, do I have to make a clay model for you? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

More irrelevant squabbling from Antaeus Feldspar. Antaeus, are you inventing things or hallucinating? Or is the "reality" you are referring to only made of clay on your table? --AI 03:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

AI, please cite these references from Canadian officials, so that we can see them for ourselves. Thank you. --Modemac 13:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I did, I gave name and dates. This info is not from the web, btw. --AI 22:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modemac's "obscure California law"

Modemac, you write[7] an "obscure California law" but you do not cite the law or quote it. Is it really obscure? In who's opinion is it obscure? Why aren't the readers allowed to decide? --AI 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I added references and link to the California Penal Code (the alleged "obscure law"), and removed POV reference to it. Let the reader decide is it is obscure or not. --Zappaz 02:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1971 Supreme Court decision

User:141.154.206.219 apparently changed the article to reference a 1971 Supreme Court decision but with a URL link to a commentary by Arnie Lerma who is an associate of Keith Hensons (MORE POV). The url should link to the actual copy of the Supreme Court documents. --AI 23:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of talk page

User:MarkSweep please explain why you reverted[8] the page, I have already explained my reverts. --AI 00:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Your reverts have the effect of removing a comment by User:Antaeus Feldspar. Numerous editors have encouraged you strongly and repeatedly not to remove comments by other users, both on talk pages and in edit summaries. --MarkSweep 02:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

AI has seemed to think that he is allowed to remove not only his personal attacks but any sign that he ever made them, such as admonishments he drew for them. He's even done this on my own talk page, removing his own comments and mine. In case there is any doubt at all, BTW, I would rather someone who's got a peeve against me make a hundred personal attacks on me and have the guts to stand by them than make one personal attack, say "Oopsie! I wasn't allowed to do that, but I did it anyways and now policy gives me the inalienable right to toss the conversation down the memory hole!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

If they are personal comments or attacks I can remove them. They can be found in the history. --AI 04:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, can you take your arguments to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks, maybe they will consider your opinions. --AI 01:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverting personal comments has nothing to do with the actual issues over the content of this article. --AI 03:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still POV

Most of the contributors to this article want to focus on Henson vs. Scientology. No wonder the NPOV tag is still on his article. If he is a writer on life extension and cryonics, memetics; If he is a founding member of the L5 Society and a lifetime member of the National Space Society then why doesn't the article's body mention these things. All I see is Keith Henson#Explosives expert and Keith Henson#Henson versus Scientology. And some of you have had the audacity to claim I am not approaching this with NPOV? --AI 01:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explosives expert

The article now explains his explosives backround but "somebody" keeps reverting my addition of this to the introduction. Perhaps the intro should say Howard Keith Henson is only an American explosives expert and critic of Scientology. --AI 01:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, please explain your revert[9] of my explained edits. --AI 22:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

MarkSweep, same with your edit, you reverted my edit even though I explained it here and you stated in the edit summary "rv. take it to talk" I have offered my "talk" Where is yours? --AI 03:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You keep inserting the same description of "explosives expert" into the introduction over and over, despite the fact the people have reverted you. Nobody but you seems to think that it deserves to be there. So the burden of proof is on you. Either come up with a better argument why "explosives expert" should be in the intro, or let it go. The fact that you have provided what you call an "explanation" does not automatically give you the right to re-insert the same content over the objections of others. For the record: I consider mention of "explosives expert" entirely irrelevant for the intro paragraph.

A revert does not indicate authority or consensus. Sock puppets or a cabal can falsely create a sense of consensus. In this case, the reverts simply show that there are Keith Henson supporters editing this article as there is evidence that Keith Henson is an expert in explosives. The burden of proof is not upon me, it's already in the article. Where do you get this idea that the burden of proof is upon me? --AI 02:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've also reverted the TotallyDisputed tag you inserted back to the old NPOV tag. As far as I can tell from the article and this talk page, the factual accuracy of this information is not under dispute. --MarkSweep 04:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as you can tell... I'll refrain from making personal comments about you here in this talk page. I suggest you consider my point of view (which is backed by government documents) as one that is not going to go away. --AI 02:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There is significant evidence supporting an introductory statement that Keith Henson is an explosives expert. Anyone who would prohibit addition of this material is obviously a supporter of critics of Scientology and allowing his/her bias to influence him/her instead of maintaining NPOV. --AI 03:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. "What are your crimes?". Yep, that's really NPOV, isn't it? --Modemac 12:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

What don't you get? NPOV requires all POVs to be fairly represented. There is a significant POV that Keith is an explosives expert, that POV has been attributed to reliable sources. And furthermore, consensus does not trump NPOV so there is no point in trying to build consensus against representing this POV. --AI 22:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This POV is already represented in paragraph 3 of the article with quoting Ken Hoden and one para should be enough for the subject. The district attorney had his info from Scientology during the court case (or from what Henson himself said which is stated in the same para), so this is no additional info. --Irmgard 20:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Henson's arrest in Canada by armed police

"The decision to ask for the assistance of the Halton Regional Police Service Emergency Services Unit in the arrest and detention of the complainants was made by [subject officer] in consultation with [subject officer] and a supervisor of the Toronto Police Service Emergency Task Force. In arriving at this decision [subject officer] considered both what it was he was trying to accomplish and the various pieces of information he was aware of which might affect his ability to accomplish it. [Subject officer] stated that he received Henson's file and learned that a warrant for the arrest of Henson had already been issued by Citizenship and Immigration. His job, therefore, was to locate Henson, arrest him on the strength of the existing warrant and have him brought before the appropriate authorities for an immigration hearing.
"[Subject officer] learned from an official of the California Department of Justice, District Attorney [redacted], that Henson had a history of familiarity and proficiency with explosives. [Subject officer] states he learned Henson was believed to be providing information on the construction of pipe bombs over the Internet. As a result of these pieces of information [subject officer] came to the conclusion that the arrest of Henson potentially involved higher risks than other types of arrests and that he should make some efforts to address these risks. There is nothing to suggest this was an unreasonable conclusion to arrive at."
Complainants: William G. Hagglund and Keith Henson Complaint Number: 2001-EXT-0364 Investigated by: Detective [redacted] (6274) Public Complaints Investigation Bureau

excerpt posted by AI 02:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Henson deported from Canada!

And what do we have here, Keith? You are deported from Canada. I saw it comming. Please don't come to Utah. You are creepy!

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/webapp/sitepages/printable.asp?paper=www.brantfordexpositor.ca&contentID=125923&annewspapername=Brantford%20Expositor

User The Original Vivaldi rocks! Barbara Schwarz

The note above was written by one of the scientologits who camps out on alt.religion.scientology. She seems to be unaware that Wikipedia is not a forum for taunting the people one's cult is persecuting.

[edit] Henson leaving Canada

I've added a short text about Henson leaving Canada. I'd say a segment is ending, and another segment of his life is beginning. Feel free to improve the text. Tilman 17:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman

There are posting on Usenet that Henson just says he leaves Canada but that he will continue to hide there. My guess the new segment in his life is prison. Can happen to you too, Tilly.

User: The Original Vivaldi rocks! Barbara Schwarz

[edit] Rm section

I have no idea what this concerns, but:

[edit] "Dead Agent" accusations against Henson

Seven days later, on October 22, 1997 another usenet posting on alt.religion.scientology, claiming to be Carolyn Meinel, denied the report[d47f516d68fc3c77?q=%22carolyn+meinel%22&rnum=4&hl=en#d47f516d68fc3c77. Keith claimed that accusations of the sort are common in divorce proceedings. Carolyn continues to support Henson by speak positively on his behalf [10].

Please remove this false and libelous material. I am Carolyn Meinel, I support my daughter's reports of what Henson did to them, I only objectred to the Scientology post because it claimed he had raped all four of our daughters. He only raped two of them. I threw him out of the house the very day I learned of this, our two youngest were aged one and two so I doubt he got to thEM.

PLEASE REMOVE THIS FALSE AND LIBELOUS CLAIM THAT I SIDE WITH HENSON AGAINST MY DAUGHTERS!!!! PLEASE HAVE PITY ON HIS INNOCENT VICTIMS, THEY WERE JUST CHILDREN AND HE HAD NO RIGHT TO RAPE THEM. THE ONLY REASON HE WASN'T PROSECUTED WAS BECAUSE HIS LAWYER PROMISED TO PUT OUR DAUIGHTERS THROUGH LIVING HELL IF THE AUTHORITIES PUT HIM ON TRIAL. I CAN PROVIDE WITNESSES IF YOU INSIST!!!!

Carolyn Meinel 505-2xx-xxxx office, 505-2xx-xxxx home. (Xoloz has removed the numbers)

This protest has appeared on the page. Perhaps vandalism, but if so a dedicated vandal certainly. It appears this material is unfit for the article. If it is, please source. Xoloz 16:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if this is the same Meinel as the security expert Carolyn Meinel. --Maru (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably, yes, Henson's first wife. On her site there is a para in her bio: "She is a co-founder and for several years the president of the L-5 Society, an organization now known as the National Space Society." This fits together with Henson's bio. If she has written this stuff, or how she thinks of him now, I have no idea. Irmgard 07:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I question her expertise in the security realm. Lippard 07:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

See Carolyn P. Meinel, which I've just added info to about Keith Henson and the L5 Society - David Gerard 13:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Freedom Watch Links

Can we (non-scientologists) agree that Religious Freedom Watch is a pro-Scientology website masquerading as a defense against all religions and therefore not covered under NPOV? I don't personally think that they should be eliminated from this page, but rather set aside a called-out for what they are - The biased Scientologist POV. Can anyone enlighten me regarding website policy? I'm new to this. Until then, I am going to edit them aside. Smokey Russell 15:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Removed RFW links see previous discussion of the nature of this sort of partisan website information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arnaldo_Lerma#RFW_Page

Maureen D 13:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Druid Days

In this section the sentence "The company occasionally did seismic work that required explosives." is just sort of hung in there in the middle. What is the significance of this statement? Unless it can be made relevant - i.e. Keith Henson used explosives for this company (or something) - I don't see its relevance. We do not have a sentence that tells us how employees of the company got around in the field (jeep? helicopter?), nor what brand of tools they prefer to buy. This is because that information is irrelevant. Without further elaboration, so is the sentence regarding explosives.

I'll check back tomorrow and remove this if no one objects with a reason. ChrisLawson 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it was included because a good deal (IIRC) of Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition that dwelt on Henson dealt with explosives. As to whether it's relevant, I don't know. Certainly is an interesting hobby though.--maru (talk) contribs 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the company referred to was the "explosives company" that Henson is stated as having worked for in this article. I see on reviewing the article that that connection is not actually stated. If we can't substantiate that connection, then I would agree that the mention is irrelevant. However, I would say that since the CoS is trying to paint Henson as someone whose knowledge of explosives is automatically a sign of a dangerous, underground mind, if he instead used explosives as part of a society-positive, aboveground career, it's relevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this completely. The sentence seemed strange, like an attempt to get us thinking about Henson and explosives in a vague fashion. Which, for some reason, seems more sinister than simply stating something like "Henson worked with explosives at a geophysics company". Normally I might not care about something like this, but when POV editors have a serious axe to grind, it seems better to be extra careful. ChrisLawson 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cryonics

Which wife participatated with Henson in Alcor? Carolyn Meinel or Arel Lucas ? For that mattewr, how many wifes has he had? B.K. 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

More likely Arel is meant. I knew Keith in the early Nineties; he was active in Alcor's suspension team at the time, and married to Arel. —Tamfang 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Henson arrested?

I just got this mail at the extropy chat mailing list. Obviously this can't be put into the article yet, but if someone can help at finding some news source, or internet resource where there's some reference to this, please reply to this message.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arel Lucas <arellu@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 3, 2007 1:47 AM
Subject: Keith Taken into Custody
To: arellu@gmail.com


Writing to myself and bc'ing you all so as not to compromise anybody's
address.  Don't think I've written any of you yet.

Amost too tired to type.  Running as fast as I can since around 3 or
3:30 this afternoon when Keith was arrested in Prescott, AZ,
supposedly on the bench warrant issued by the judge in 2001 in
Riverside County.

I can barely think.  I gave a nurse his blood pressure meds but
haven't heard anything except that the desk clerk told me he had been
booked and was in a single cell this evening.  So I hope he's safe.

The death threats continued unabated, and his last safe house had been
visited by police, so we were seeking lawyers and talking about where
to go when.  They stopped the car of the 2 I own that he usually
drives (he's still bankrupt and owns nothing).

I'm running on rage.  I have nothing else to give me energy.  With
grief or fear I'd break down.  So I choose rage.  Damned thing they
call a democracy here in this damned country, where he was arrested,
convicted and sentenced for picketing.  Damned law enforcement that
lies, has no brains, will do $cientology's bidding.  I may have made
some connections that will help him refuse extradition and have his
case in California reviewed here in Arizona.  The police told me that
he can't have a lawyer at the hearing Monday morning, and I can't be
there.  I was told by a couple of people that it's no good fighting
extradition, but when it's a matter of going into a
$cientology-controlled jail so they can fulfill their death threats,
I'll fight what I can.

The damned $cientologists have carried out *every other threat they've
made* against him *and* me.  So I believe the death threats.  Why
wouldn't I?  I did an oral history with someone in Canada in which she
tells me of their murder of a friend of hers.  I've seen the look on
their smug faces.  I've been snarled at by Elliot Abelson, the garbage
Mafia lawyer who ran the trial in Hemet.

I can use all the advice and help I can get.  I will follow him to
Riverside as soon as I have any clue he's on his way there.  I will
make as big a stink as I can.  I'm trying to reach press, have given
out my phone numbers to anyone who wants details.  Please get press
involved.  If my employers can't take the heat, they'll either fire me
or make me resign.  The hell with them.  I'll have reached the 2nd
tier of social security sometime in July.  If I can hold out till then
I'll get a little more of a pittance.

So if you talk to me and I'm mad, well, yes I am.  I hate this country
that arrests people for picketing and lets the terrorist
$cientologists run wild.  If I can get him out of jail we'll leave
it--for good, if possible.  I've lost faith in pretty much everyone
and everything--certainly democracy, justice, law enforcement--but
that was a long time ago.  I'm used to it now.  But I'm still mad.

Arel
(928) 445-4412
(323) 712-5492

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.136.28.199 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I can confirm this as I am on the same list - B.K. 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Same here, I'm on the list and have seen the email too. Anyone got news about it? Miguel1626 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me B.K. and Miguel1626 can only verify they both saw that email. I did too, but this doesn't seem to help verify the email's claims about Keith Henson.

I personally called the Prescott Detention Center (928) 771-3286 about 1100 Saturday, 3 February 2007. The person who answered the phone told me they have a "Howard Henson" listed under case #389486 with an appointment in Superior court next Monday.

My questions:

Would posting this violate No Original Research?

Does my claim of a telephone call count as a reliable source? --JayDugger 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and no. We must wait for either primary sources to be publicly released in a verifiable fashion (ie. transcripts published online), or for secondary sources to cover this stuff. Remember, Wikipedia is only a tertiary source, by design. --Gwern (contribs) 18:59 3 February 2007 (GMT)

Digg this please! Creating an account in digg is easy. 193.136.28.199 12:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A link to a webzine popped up today in Google news: [11] I am unsure about the reliability of if this report from a non-notable webzine. It may only be using the list email as a source. However, scroll down to the bottom and view the comment that was posted earlier today. That message reeks of cultist, and in my mind that adds credibility to the report of Henson's arrest. However, I don't believe that feeling is verifiable. Gregarious Lonewolf 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just added an EL to a report from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies which seems to be a reasonably reliable and notable organization. AndroidCat 23:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

May be this article should be protected for the time being since the page is being vandilized and of "fair game" ?SACP 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism doesn't look nearly so bad as to warrant semi-protection, much less full protection. --Gwern (contribs) 00:56 7 February 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Striping references and fact-bombing

I've seen both done, rarely in good faith. I think this is the first time I've seen both combined. AndroidCat 04:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Smee 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I cannot revert again - but I would hope that others concerned with the truth will revert back about oh, 12 or 13 edits into the past, and get rid of the obvious vandalism and removal of sourced citations... Smee 04:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Don't know what you mean. If you are referring to my edits, they are justified. See the RS and see my comments. I guess the "fact-bombing" means inserting cn templates by BD? OK, instead insert an unsourced template. What is the big deal? --Justanother 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits seem to be fine, but they are built on top of BabyDweezil's striping of valid references and then {{fact}}-bombing the article which I don't think is acceptable. AndroidCat 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not look closely enough at the edits to read between one editor's good faith attempts and another's obvious vandalism. Hopefully others will sort this all out. I still think it would be best for someone to undo "BabyDweezil's striping of valid references and then {{fact}}-bombing the article", and go from there... Smee 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] huh?

I removed a whole bunch of references that, e.g., linked to some dude's website when his name was mentioned, but DID NOT in any way verify that he had anything AT ALL to do with the subject. Go back and look at how it was--it's rather ridiculous. I added fact tags to the extensive unsourced material. Wazza matta with that? BabyDweezil 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish that others might take a bit more understanding look at BD's points. While I am no expert on his edits in general, I do not see asking for cn on an article that is a real dog's breakfast is so terrible. Certainly not vandalism; though it is better to pick and choose a bit and use unsourced-section template, IMO. This article is organized terribly, also, and needs major rewrite! --Justanother 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There are too many valid references that were stripped by BabyDweezil to let that edit stand. Some of the references could certainly be contested or improved, but presented with a lump edit like that, it needs reverting. I see that Antaeus Feldspar has already rolled it back before I did. It might have been more productive for BabyDweezil to spend the hour after block expiry discussing it on the Talk page and gaining some consensus. AndroidCat 04:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving merge

My thoughts on bits of the two versions, feel free to add points, but comments should go under.

• "whose retaliation" Yes, of course it was (IMO), but without references of that's what it was, I don't think it can stand.
• "The jury was not permitted to hear" Needs a reference. There should be a press story that's citable.
• Reference to 'California Penal Code, section 422.6 should remain since it shows exactly what civil rights and law was involved.
• Vietnam. Interesting but it's a bit of a sidetrack, isn't it?
• Missing: nothing on the other charges that were dismissed.
• Hanson [sp] fled to the Unites States. Fled seems POV.

Carry on, I'm either going to bed (logical vote) or watch Stargate:Atlantis (emotional vote). AndroidCat 05:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Same for me (bed). Good points and mine exactly:

• Retaliation - POV if unsourced
• Permitted to hear - that is retrying the case here. Find a RS, then sure.
• Penal code - sure
• Vietnam - dross
• Missing - sure, add it
• Fled - that is what the source said and is what you call it when someone runs instead of appearing

Good night all. --Justanother 06:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is basically unreferenced and an original research essay

the references that are in there are fluff--websites for prosecutors, lawyers, and various bits of nonsense but ZERO actual sources how any of them are related to the articles subject. Nothing about Henson himself is referenced--all those other references seem to be there to look like this Original research essay has any sources.BabyDweezil 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The vs. scientology section is using wikipedia as a soapbox for someone's Pro-This-Guy and Anti-scn views. The guy broke some laws and lost some court cases. We don't need a blow by blow account especially since that account is 1) original research and 2) makes horrendous anti-scn assumptions which renders it utterly, obviously, blatantly POV. I mean come on this thing reads like an unedited diatribe from operation clambake. Someone that cares about this guy start hacking the crap out of it please - in discussable chunks. This is not encyclopedic! The vs. Scn stuff is an attack piece, plain and simple. Slightlyright 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us also think about this article from Mr. Henson's point of view. He was held in jail, for a time denied his cardiac medications, and made to sleep with one blanket. The sources are reputable and the account is accurate. Smee 08:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

No, lets not think about it from anyone's POV. This is an encyclopedia. Your appeal to use Wikipedia to advocate for your pet causes couldnt be more obvious (since you said it!). BabyDweezil 08:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP YOUR VIOLATIONS OF Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks!!!. I was merely pointing out that if Slightlyright wants to look at the article from Scientology's point of view and voice his opinion that this reads like an "attack piece" it is also worthwhile to look at the article from the POV of the subject of the article. It was a rhetorical statement and not reflective of my own personal opinions. Yeesh. Smee 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Please calm down. BabyDweezil 08:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should he be calm when you are openly and unrepentantly violating the rules against personal attacks, BabyDweezil? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper and misleading use of referencing

The following is an example of the misleading and rather bogus use of sources throughout the article:
Henson stated through counsel^[1] (the reference is to the attorney website, not a source for a statement)
that he is fighting extradition and requested release.
The judge^[2] set a future court date for March 5, 2007 (the reference is to the judge's homepage, not a source for the court date being set) at 1:30 pm in the Prescott Justice Court^[3], and fixed the security for his release at $7,500 cash or bond, with standard conditions. (the reference is to the webpage for the courthouse, not a source for bond being set)

This faux referencing is done throughout the article, largely, it seems, to give a false sense of notability to the subject. Comments welcomed. I do think the bogus/misleading sources should be removed, since they give a false appearance of proper sourcing. BabyDweezil 16:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say "sofixit" but not if "fixing it" means wholesale deletions. The article is already tagged, sonme work is being done on it, so let's see where it goes. I think that the examples that you gave above are easy enough to source and my "sofixit" would be to source them and edit to match the source. No-one can argue with you if you find an RS that covers the material that you claim is unsourced and then edit to match the RS you found. That is an improvement while wholesale deletion is problematic. I go into this topic a bit on my user page under "doing the work". --Justanother 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone who considers the subject notable enough to provide the proper sourcing. As it is, the article is 99.2% lacking in RS's--the references that do appear in the biographical sections follow the same pattern of sourcing events, people etc but not sourcing at all Henson's connection to them. I haven't the resources to establish those connections before my rapidly approaching cryonization. BabyDweezil 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but just keep in mind that if some people are building a house they are not going to much appreciate someone standing on the sidewalk saying "You guys are doing it all wrong". They would not likely object to that same guy picking up a saw and showing them how it should be done. That is what I mean by "just people" here and "the normal interactions of people". I think that certainly most editors and admins here are aware of bias problems and OR problems but since the ones complaining are doing more complaining than fixing then there is a tendency to close ranks and defend the ones that are actually creating articles here against the perceived enemy that appears to be solely interested in tearing articles down. The only solution is to join in, find sources, edit articles. So instead of heading rapidly for the freezer, slow down and contribute. --Justanother 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted and appreciated. And even though some pugnacious Russians from more interesting times have noted the creative side of tearing things up, I, guided as ever by Corinthians, only mean to offer the most constructive of criticisms. BabyDweezil 17:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just like that guy on the sidewalk. "Sidewalk superintendents", we used to call them back when I worked in a ditch up to my waist in water. Big help, they were too. Couldn't have done the job without 'em. Laff --Justanother 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Illustration of above point. Note workers. Note "sidewalk superintendent". Note condition of coveralls on all parties. "Hey, you are holding that shovel the wrong way. Choke up on it more." (Should note that the sidewalk guy seems to be the actual superintendent or foreman; the term "sidewalk superintendent" refers to casual bystanders, not employees. But the image made my point so well) --Justanother 17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can dig it.BabyDweezil 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I just got that. Man, am I slow :-) --Justanother 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This "sidewalk superintendent" stuff is nothing more than a fairly lengthy PA. Tanaats 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, before you go accusing me of PA, would you please be kind enough to let us all know exactly who you think is being attacked??? As in "personal". Kinda needs a "person", don't it? --Justanother 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is abundantly obvious which editors you are referring to. Sarcasm, innuendo, and mocking humor and laughter constitute PA whether you actually specifically name the targets or not. Tanaats 20:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You totally miss what went on above. Sorry if you feel offended but the "target" of my "attack" was BabyDweezil and it was my (pretty obvious, I thought) attempt to persuade him to turn from the path that led him to one block and the threat of another. Don't know why you would take my comments to mean you or anyone else that you know. If they can be taken to mean anyone but BD, it would be pro-Scn editors that are disruptive, and that is what the bit on my user page is about. --Justanother 20:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Just like that guy on the sidewalk. "Sidewalk superintendents", we used to call them back when I worked in a ditch up to my waist in water. Big help, they were too. Couldn't have done the job without 'em. Laff." Tanaats 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(repeat of my post elesewhere) Tanaats, I never doubted for a second that Justanother was mocking me in those comments, and in fact I believe I thanked him for the advice to me more than once. (I'm not going to look for the diffs because this whole thing is getting to childish). However, I might suggest editors take a look at WP:OWN. Without delving too deeply into psychobabble, I can't help think that some of the knee-jerk, trigger-happy angry reverts of my edits, as well as the hostile and distorted "complaints" that led to my brief Wikilynching are rooted in some sort of personal outrage that I have dared challenge a number of distorted bits of POV pushing that have been festering in a number of articles. BabyDweezil 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, another PA, quite blatent this this time, in which you express your attitude towards fellow editors.

And not for the first time, either. See also my comments on your 3RR complaint as regards your prior demonstrated blatent disrespect for fellow editors as well as administrators.

I'm done here. Tanaats 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats, all due respect but you are one confused wikipedia editor. That are not my words above, that is BabyDweezil. Seriously, if you cannot correctly interprete what you read then you should make accusations against other editors with only the greatest of caution! I sincerely hope that you truly are "done here" if by that you mean "done" trying to make other editors look bad for reasons known only to yourself. --Justanother 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call me a pedant...

"OK, you're a pedant." Ahem.

In this edit, Smeelgova italicized a quote that (since Henson tried to have the opinion entered into evidence) can be reasonably characterized as a pro-Henson position, but not the corresponding quote from the Scientologist. It would seem (regardless of my personal opinion of the individuals quoted) that to maintain NPOV, it is unfair by implication thereby to treat one as the horse's mouth and the other as the horse's ass. I conclude one should italicize either both quotes, or neither. Anyone care to try for consensus as to which? Abb3w 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC), SP

I have implemented your suggestion... Smee 06:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

After checking WP:MOS, I believe that these italics are inappropriate in both cases, and will Be Bold and {{fixit}}. Abb3w 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)