Talk:Mike Rinder

No need for Australian English tag

Rinder not only left Australia as a teenager, but has been living and working in the USA for over 50 years. Almost all citations are from the USA. I have removed the tag Template:Use Australian English because it is simply a nod to Rinder's origins, not his life nor the media coverage. Grorp (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dl2000: It wasn't by accident that I removed the tag, and no 'repair' was needed. Out of the 42 citations in this article, only 3 are of non-USA origin, and those three are British (Guardian, BBC Panorama, The Sunday Times). There is not one single Australian citation in the article. Grorp (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; for that reason, I've changed the date format as well. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Founder or not (The Aftermath Foundation)

I hope to lay this to rest once and for all. I see there are some trying to continue the drama over who is considered a founder of The Aftermath Foundation. As best I can tell from sources and online searches, it was incorporated in Texas on December 21, 2017; signature by Luis Garcia, dated January 17, 2018. GuideStar reports the ruling year as 2018 (the year the IRS granted tax exempt status). Rinder's blog post dated March 5, 2018 includes "Today, we launch The Aftermath Foundation..." Rinder's book page 290 says: "Two years ago, Christie and I formed a nonprofit organization with Luis Garcia, Aaron Smith-Levin, Marc and Claire Headley, and lawyer Ray Jeffrey. The Aftermath Foundation..."

Whatever might have been said by Smith-Levin on his YouTube channel when he was separated from The Aftermath Foundation in late 2023, is not a reliable source. (Yes, I watched the videos.) It also contradicts what we have in writing, published at or near the time that events unfolded. I don't have access to the Texas Secretary of State online business search to see if there is further information in the establishing documents. But know also that "founder" is a term which may be given to a person who was part of the early establishment of something, not necessarily the person who might have "had the original idea". If Rinder was there to announce "the launch", whether or not he was there when the corporate documents were created, he would ordinarily be considered a co-founder. See also Organizational founder.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It has been clearly stated the Aftermath Foundation was co-founded by Luis Garcia and Aaron Smith-Levin. This is explicitly stated on the Aftermath Foundation website. There were two co-founders. The other people were/are board members only. Otherwise, the Aftermath Foundation would have also listed the other six participants as co-founders. DLG57 (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@DLG57: You are referring to the bottom of this Aftermath Foundation page. Just because no other persons are mentioned as co-founders, doesn't mean there are/were only two. Nonprofits normally have more than two. A simple web search shows that the IRS requires a minimum of three board members to establish a 501(c)3 nonprofit charity, which the Aftermath Foundation is. Therefore, you cannot assume that the two-mentioned co-founders on the AF website are the only two. In fact, the Wayback Machine version of that webpage from the month prior to Aaron Smith-Levin's separation shows only Luis Garcia as "co-founder", and no others mentioned as co-founder including Aaron Smith-Levin who is mentioned on that page as [active] Vice-President. This alone should show you that a mention under "past board members" as "co-founder" is not exclusive to the entire group of current and past board members, but only to the group of "past board members".

Also, the president of the Aftermath Foundation read aloud on YouTube their open letter of November 22, 2023. In it, the organization states there were seven (7) founding members, and lists them. Mike Rinder is one of them. So unless you can come up with sufficient reliable sources (per Wikipedia standards) that can reliably contradict what the Aftermath Foundation itself is saying, then we must use "co-founded" rather than "joined" in the content of the Mike Rinder page. If you prefer "founding member", we can use that, too.

But I would say that the archived version of the AF board page is the incontrovertible evidence that "co-founder" is not one of only two people (LG & ASL).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I see you reverted my edit. The current wording is simply not correct. The correct wording would be: Luis Garcia - Founder & Founding President, this is because he applied for the foundation. Aaron Smith-Levin - Founding Vice President, Claire Headley - Founding Secretary, etc. That would be how you would address the 4 founding officers. Everyone else, which includes Mike would be a Founding Member. That would be the best language. So I acknowledge, even my edit was not 100% correct. Khower (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Page protection requested

Since the cult following of Aaron Smith-Levin continue to vandalise this page, I have requested page protection.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

seriously?

@Grorp: I did some minor tightening up of the front matter [1] and set the minimum number of threads lower because threads more than a year old were not being archived [2]. Both changes were knee-jerk reverted by @Grorp: for the odd reason Recent changes don't match pattern of all the other Wikiproject:Scientology articles. Talk page formatting can and should be tailored to the article, this is the first I've ever heard of even a suggestion that a WikiProject has authority to dictate simple matters like whether banner boxes are collapsed, so I'd like an explanation of how you came by that idea, and how your changes made the talk page better. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. I'm the predominant editor in the WP:SCN area and I like to see a table of contents (which requires 4 or more threads), and I hate those archive "boxes" (I favor the single line archive link in the talk page header). I don't consider swapping a single line for a box "tightening up". There's a lot of work to be done in this subject area and I frequently refer to some of the older talk page threads to do work that has been on my very long task list. I have set up most of the talk pages this way. It is not a matter of "authority", but more a matter of an active user liking their tools to be a certain way. There is no policy suggesting that all talk pages need to be purged of all content but the most recent. And since I've never seen your username before, you're not one of the active users in this subject area.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So, it's not the WikiProject, it is you excersing your own authority to make all the talk pages look and act the way you think they should be, and I have no say because you don't recognize my name. That's actually far worse than I thought.

"Predominant editor" is not a title or a user right that we have, but if you want to get in a pissing contest I'd point out that we've had articles on a broad range of Scientology topics way, way longer than two-and-a-half years, which is how long you've been editing, and coincidentally, also the last time there was an amendment to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, which I am aware of because I was a member of the arbitration committee at that time. I have changed my name since then but whether you personally recognize it it or not has no bearing on anything. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Not interested in a pissing contest, and I'm just talking about "tools", not throwing weight around. If most things in Wikipedia (failing clear cut rules to the contrary) are based on consensus, then my opinion of how this talk page should be laid out should carry more weight than someone randomly coming by to tidy up. I didn't revert your edit to piss you off; I did it to put my tools back. My edit summary language was an attempt to be more neutral than "I prefer it thisaway".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I, also an occasional contributor to the Scientology topic area, largely agree with Grorp. The archiving of old talk threads strictly by a time-basis can be annoying and can detract attention from valid points that were raised in the past. It's really not a necessary change here, personally I like the archives being in the header but I honestly don't care enough to push it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)