Jump to content

Talk:Richard de Mille

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source check

[edit]

I have to question this statement made in the article: "Around this time de Mille became an early convert to the movement that was to become Scientology. But he parted with the movement when the founder took a personal dislike to him."

It contradicts the statement made on the sustainaction websites which says the following: "In the early 1950's, L. Ron Hubbard lured him into becoming his right-hand man for a time, until de Mille began to smell a rat. Once he'd convinced himself that Hubbard was a fake and that he had wasted his time as his apologist, he vowed he'd never again be trapped by a false guru. With the publication of Castaneda's first book, de Mille thought he was onto something genuine. But then, with Castaneda's refusal to produce field notes or satisfactorily explain inherent contradictions in his books, de Mille grew alarmed. He soon decided to pursue Castaneda with the idea of getting at the truth, seemingly, with a vengeance."

the source: http://sustainedaction.org/Explorations/conjuring_brujos.htm

--Bill--

Monday December 29, 2008

Reply: There is substantial evidence that Richard de Mille was a co-founder of the Scientology movement, as writer, editor, publisher and general PA to L. Ron Hubbard. Under the pen name of "D. Folgere", he authored and published a substantial number of books, pamphlets and tracts, formulating Dianetics and becoming a lifelong adherent.

Although it is inferred that he 'left Scientology' by 'falling out with Hubbard' in the 'early 1950s', he continued to publish books promoting Scientology and Dianetics right up until his death. He also delivered seminars on Dianetics and treated patients using Dianetics (as a Psychologist) throughout his life. A simple Google will lead to evidence supporting these statements. If one searches on Abe books, one will find a substantial number of Scientology-based literature authored and published by de Mille, from the 1950s into the late 1990s.

The website "Sustained Action" was created by a disgruntled Scientologist called Richard Jennings, under the pseudonym "Corey Donovan". If one searches, one will find that most of the pro-de Mille/anti-Castaneda invective originates from that one website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.207.137 (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

[edit]

Rstelnick, the article is taking shape, however you might want to consider separating the references from the external links as they fall under different rules (okay, guidelines) WP:RS and WP:EL respectively. As well, you should eventually work the references inline to support individual paragraphs and even sentences. It's not that hard, and once it's done, it really improves it for readers because they know which reference to go to for a particular bit of info. Basically, add <ref name="fred1">link and stuff</ref> in the first place you use the reference, then <ref name="fred1"/> anywhere else you want to use the same reference. Down at the bottom, in a Notes section, use {{reflist}} on a line by itself, and all the footnotes will automatically be placed there.

Sorry to hear that Richard de Mille passed away recently. (Ummm. You might want to see if there is an obituary news article somewhere, since the date of death should be referenced.) AndroidCat (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

[edit]

There are no citations or sources for any of the statements in the paragraph concerning Scientology. This material should be deleted if sources are established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientologist

[edit]

I have removed the assertion that De Mille was a scientologist. It is inappropriate to describe De Mille as a scientologist in the summary section when his association with scientology lasted just two years and ended when the relationship ended due to a "mutual dislike" between him and Hubbard. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 23:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good on ya. Some editors are obsessed with the subject and feature it even where it is not a significant feature -- as here. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: I have a problem with this edit by the user Mmyotis:

1) According to his own words, de Mille joined up with Hubbard at the age of 27, which would mean 1948. He published his then-latest version of 'Introduction to Scientology' in 1955. That's already 7 years association, during which de Mille authored and edited over 200 Scientology publications, both under his own name and the pseudonym 'D. Folgere'. That is significant;

De Mille spent the rest of his life as a 'freezone' Scientologist (one who splits from the Church but who retains the core beliefs and practices), renewing copyrights and republishing his original Scientology Dianetics tract (Put Mother On The Ceiling) in differing formats, up to the time of his death. His bread-and-butter income was from delivering Dianetics-based seminars and counselling paying customers under the 'alternative mental health' umbrella;

2) The user Mmyotis has a vested interest in promoting de Mille as a whitewashed character: the user Mmyotis is Thomas Oakes, aka 'Tom' of the Sustained Reaction website, dedicated to promoting the writings of de Mille and denouncing the writings of C. Castaneda. Mmyotis has held admin privileges at said website for several years. This is a blatant conflict of interest.

Mmyotis also has a substantial anti-Castaneda/pro-de Mille webprint that can be traced back over 10 years, across the internet.

I shall revert the edit and await feedback here on the Talk page. 78.146.1.20 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a riddle of language. Was Martin Luther a Catholic? Was George Washington a British subject? Was Jesus a Jew? Also, "Freezone" seems to be a particular group -- not a generic ex-Scientologist. Not every ex-Catholic is a Protestant. The deeper issue here is that DeMille is mentionable but not notable for his Scientology connection. Obsessing on anything and everything associated with Scientology has no more intellectual validity than obsessing on Carlos Castaneda. My duo centavos. :-) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False statement regarding one of De Mille's books.

[edit]

Someone posted the following in the article, without proper citation:

"De Mille wrote Castaneda's Journey: The Power and the Allegory (publ. 1976)<SNIP> through which he said that Carlos Castaneda was a charlatan and plagiarist."

That's not true. I've spent time poring through this book in an attempt to find any usage of the terms cited and have found none whatsoever.

This statement appears to be a sort-of internet chinese whisper-type phenomenom, copied-and-pasted across the internet for the last 18 years, as if it were fact.

De Mille is at pains to make no allegations against Castaneda, only inferences. No concrete evidence is presented by De Mille, only hypothesis.

With this in mind, I shall wait one week for due diligence and unless another editor can provide a proper citation which can be checked, I shall then delete the passage and a subsequent qualifying statement.

2.98.207.181 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we waiving the "primary source" rule by examining the deMille books? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What point are you trying to make? That the entry should stand? 78.147.179.86 (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question. It seems to be a request for research on whether DeMille wrote those things. Making the statement without a secondary source requires either the primary source, or wp:synth. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How's this: Richard DeMille has written two books {Castaneda's Journey, 1976); The Don Juan Papers, 1980) claiming that Castaneda is a hoaxer and that don Juan is fictional. A Critical Look at Castaneda's Critics, Anton F. Koote, University of Florida. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable; using the source, but...--Elvey(t•c) 22:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "..he (de Mille) said that Carlos Castaneda was a charlatan and a plagiarist.." is the one in question. There is no citation for this - just a book reference. Following the reference through to a copy of the book itself, reveals no such text whatsoever. De Mille says nothing in his writings that could have caused him litigation problems while Castaneda was alive. He makes no such claims whatsoever - just inferences and hypothesis.78.147.179.86 (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: Without citation it is either OR or SYNTH and should be removed. If a substitute is desired ("hoaxer"), the work above could be cited, putting it in Koote's voice, of course. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly nothing wrong with describing what a source says, rather than quoting it directly. In fact, it's best practice. (Of course, if the article ever said, de Mille said "Carlos Castaneda was a charlatan and a plagiarist" that would be bad, but that's not the case; there are no quotes and there is a "that". --Elvey(t•c) 22:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

IP editors

[edit]

Per WP:ARBSCI, IP users are not allowed in discussions; Requirement is "8) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:
(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account." Further IP comments may not be made and if made should be reverted and reported. --Elvey(t•c) 22:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section with no citations.

[edit]

This section is citationless:

"In 1955, he completed his B.A. degree at Pepperdine University and married Margaret Belgrano.[citation needed] He went on to get a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California in 1961. He remained with that institution as a research psychologist until 1962, when he became a lecturer in psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In 1965, he left that position, becoming editorial director of the Brooks Foundation the following year. He stayed there until 1967, becoming a research psychologist at the General Research Corp. in 1968, where he remained through 1973.[citation needed]"

I've tried to find reliable online sources for any of this but have failed. There are online references to a BA degree from Sequoia University and an Associate Professorship in Scientology at the same institution. [1].

I'll await due diligence for 7 days minimum. If no proper citations are forthcoming, it should be deleted.79.75.221.212 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added RN template to section. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed that there are no citations in any of this article.  ?? 79.75.221.212 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's noted in the top maintenance tag since 2014. Apparently it is worse than it was in 2010. What do you propose? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do I propose? Well I don't know. It certainly is a mess. What's Wiki procedure for such a thing? Is there a precedent? What do you propose? 79.75.221.212 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. I hoped you were setting me up for a suggestion. The WP policy is here. I suggest you pick out the most controversial point and make an issue of it, or research it. Or nominate it for deletion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I wasn't "setting you up" for anything. You asked me what should be done and I replied that I didn't have a clue. What I was asking was if you knew what Wiki policy was, concerning articles that have no citations, to which you posted an irrelevant link to guidelines about posting citations. A simple "I don't know" would have sufficed. 79.75.221.212 (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, "setting me up" was a more conversational phrase meaning you asked about the situation so you could offer a proposal. It is an ordinary conversational gambit. Second, the link is essential, not irrelevant. That page sets out three options, any or all of which may be preceded or followed by discussion with other editors: (1) research and add sources (2) tag with a plea for sources (3) delete the statements that have no sources if they are controversial or in doubt. There really isn't anything else. I don't personally own any secondary sources on deMille. I don't know whether there are any and I don't have time for an exhaustive search. If you do, please help. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. So you were "setting" me "up".

So.. if all uncited material is removed from this article, there won't be much, if anything, left. What happens then?

And on a bynote, why has no Wiki editor done anything about all this uncited material for 6 years? Why haven't you done anything about it? 79.75.221.212 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki editors are volunteers -- they have the resources they have, and they do what they do. My access to sources is stated above. When you examine your reasons for the same, they may match that of others. I edited this page only because I had read one of his books a few months ago and looked him up. I saw something I could improve on the topic and I did. I have neither duty nor debt to this page -- like everyone else. If all uncited material is removed, maybe someone will put it back, maybe not. And maybe you will debate the issue, and maybe not. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False/dead links.

[edit]

Four of the external links are either false or dead, so I'll remove the four in question. 78.145.149.151 (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting. That is contrary to policy. Also, content should not be delete merely because it does not have in-line citations. I see IPs have been deleting content merely because it does not have in-line citations. --Elvey(t•c) 22:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is not contrary to Wiki policy to remove dead and/or false/authentication required links, i.e. the four links in question. I note also that two links pointing to scholarly critiques of two of De Mille's books have also been removed. The User:Elvey has a long history of disruption and edit-warring in various subjects, injecting her own POV by removal of anything that is contrary to her editing agenda. 92.24.56.228 (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Introduction to Scientology, Scientology Council, 1953.

Just reverted one edit, then noticed all the maintenance tags have been removed

[edit]

Why? They are still not satisfied, and the text is now without RS. Help me, other editors. 22:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(answered below.)

Only one inline citation

[edit]

This article is really something. In all these many years, only one source used in the entire article, and not a good one either. Laval (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elvey needs to familiarize themselves with WP:EL, WP:RS, and WP:V. WP:AGF does not have anything to do with policies on reliable sources. That doesn't even make sense to use AGF as a justification for not using sources. Ridiculous. Even more so after violating AGF themselves by reverting me! Laval (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath, User:Laval. You're making a baseless accusation - that I used AGF as a justification for not using sources. THAT is "Ridiculous". Please retract. What actually happened: I wrote in an edit summary, "These appear to be references. Assumption that they aren't violates AGF." You had moved them from the References section to a new Further reading section. In other words, you removed 3 references. The accusation that I needs to familiarize myself with WP:EL, WP:RS, and WP:V. WP:AGF is also "Ridiculous". Please retract.
There's a long, nasty history at Carlos Castaneda of attempted sanitizing the article by removing references, and then marking the now-unreferenced content as such, and then removing it, and similar shenanigans. I see elements of the same strategy are evident in edits to this article as well.
Again: please substantiate the linkspam claim. How does it apply to the s-t.com link? Some of these are references to facts that are being disputed with pointy CN tags.)
Did you notice I removed the dixiereckoning.com link? You're edit warring. An IP removed a bunch of links. I restored 'em, noting on the talk page why I did so. Without any talk page explanation, you removed 'em (first instance of edit warring). I restored 'em. You, still without any talk page explanation, removed 'em (second instance of edit warring), while accusing me of edit warring. And reverting this is also edit warring! Please familiarize 'yourselves' with WP:DEADREF. And respect it. OK?
You make the preposterous claim that "only one source used in the entire article". The article had 3 to 4 reliable sources in the References section until you removed all but one of them, plus a bunch of EL that could perhaps actually serve as RS-compliant references too. --Elvey(t•c) 00:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{sources}} at the top or {{fact}} in the body are fine but both is, as I said, WP:POINTy. But you're unwilling to hear that, clearly.
(addendum) this book entry Verifies everything challenged - marriage to Margaret Belgrano, Pepperdine, USC, USCB, KTLA, General Research, APA, CSPA. Whoever is challenging this stuff may well be up to the same old shenanigans.
--Elvey(t•c) 23:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The book that User:Elvey cites as the sole reference for 'everything challenged' is a science-fiction magazine compendium - hardly a solid source. 92.24.56.228 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for lifting edit restrictions.

[edit]

Now that the User:Elvey has been indefinitely site banned for disruption, edit-warring and 'battleground behaviour', I propose that the edit restrictions be lifted from this article.88.108.233.238 (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did De Mille dictate his own wikipage?

[edit]

I have to admit that this looks suspicious.

If one looks at the editing history of this article, one will find that most of the info therein was originally posted by User:Rstelnick, which is the nick of the author Rick Stelnick, who is the author of 'Dixie Reckoning', which contains lots of historical information about De Mille and his family. This alone wouldn't necessarily arouse suspicion, but Rstelnick huimself posted this thankyou note: 

"Rick Stelnick would like to at this time acknowledge the priceless contributions of Mr. Richard "Dick" de Mille; throughout the research and development of the soon-to-be-published book Dixie Reckoning, in regards to truly revelatory experiences as to the relevancy and roles of the De Mill/De Mille family during the American Civil War era. May you rest in peace, sir."

Source: Line 10

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_de_Mille&diff=next&oldid=287393070

All the info contained in this article may have come directly from De Mille himself, as told to Rick Stelnick. I mean, where else could Stelnick have got this info?

..which might explain the untraceable references to jobs and qualifications at Columbia, University of Southern California, Brooks Foundation and General Research Corps etc.

De Mille's only professorship online that I can reasonably find is that of Associate Professor of Scientology, as per the cover notes of 'An Introduction to Scientology', published in 1955. 88.108.239.48 (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP contribution's record here...

[edit]

I looked at the contribution history of the IP contributors who weighed in on this page. Short version - they were all WP:SPA contributors.

IP contributors who weighed in on Talk:Richard de Mille
IP first
edit		 last
edit		 total notes
2.98.207.137 2013-10-16 2014-04-10 3 edit above was the only one of any length
78.145.149.151 2014-04-13 2014-04-13 3 One excision to Richard de Mille, two edits here
92.24.56.228 2015-05-25 2015-05-25 2 only edits were to this talk page
78.147.179.86 2016-02-18 2016-02-18 3 This IP did make one edit, 8 years earlier, which I don't count here.
2.98.207.181 2011-01-30 2016-02-18 4 two edits in 2011 to Lady Sovereign, two here, same day as 78.147.179.86
79.75.221.212 2016-03-17 2016-03-17 6 One edit to Richard de Mille, five edits here
78.146.1.20 2016-01-08 2016-01-08 2 One edit to Richard de Mille, one edit here
88.108.233.238 2016-12-02 2016-12-02 4 3 edits here, one to Florinda_Donner, a related article
88.108.239.48 2017-07-02 2017-07-02 2 both edits here

rough work

[edit]
IP contributors who edited Richard de Mille
IP first
edit		 last
edit		 total notes
161.253.116.163 2013-10-28 2013-10-28 17 16 of those 17 edits were unrelated to de Mille
64.134.224.116 2013-12-18 2013-12-18 3 2 edits to Cecil B. de Mille, 1 edit to Richard de Mille
92.24.208.224 2014-04-02 2014-04-02 1 no edit summary
80.44.198.49 2016-01-19 2016-01-19 1 edit summary Added two critiques
50.139.88.21 2013-05-25 2013-07-18 700 only edited Richard de Mille once, all edits added new categories
74.70.8.222 2012-10-01 2013-03-26 69 only edited Richard de Mille once
128.208.60.90 2010-06-01 2011-04-08 6 only edited Richard de Mille once
92.46.76.225 2010-03-09 2010-03-09 1 only edited Richard de Mille once
76.124.22.107

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

[edit]

I would like to help edit the credibility and neutrality of the article as I just so happened to be researching Richard de Mille 184.191.234.154 (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_de_Mille&oldid=1257459657"