Talk:Andreas Heldal-Lund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Rumors and Value Judgements

1. "the most prominent website": Rumor, no source given, no empirical evidence, not even a suggestion, how to measure prominence Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A source can be easily found for this. Stay tuned.wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Type "scientology" into Google. There are 15,800,000 hits. www.scientology.org (the official site) is the first hit. Xenu.net is the second hit. That sounds prominent to me. Phr 09:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The O Clambake page makes a much more credible assessment, but why should the same thing copied here.Fossa 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

2. "offering material against": Fact - Where is the material in favor of Scientology on Heldal-Lund's website? Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Andreas will add alternative viewpoints to his website. For items that he has received e-mails about, he adds a bubble on the right that says "A Second Opinion". For an example of this see: this and this Vivaldi (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Evidently this "offering material against" statement has been fixed. wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I xcanged "information" with "material against". "Information" is the balanced delievery of facts; H-L publishes his opinion and only pieces of facts that speak (in his view)Fossa 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

3. "with information critical of": Euphemism. Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a euphemism. wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"The KKK dispenses information about crimes committed by blacks". "The GOP has a website with information on Hillary Clinton." Please. That's a euphemism.Fossa 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying it's a euphemism doesn't make it one. In a paranoid enough mind, any sentence could be a euphemism. wikipediatrix 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

4. "critics" vs. "critical of" look up these terms in your favorite dictionary Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

He who eats is an eater. He who squawks is a squawker. He who criticizes is a critic. No amount of Clintonian word-parsing is going to help you put the spin on this that you seek. wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please check your favorite dictionary. These two words have different connotations. Roger Ebert is a film critic, even if he is NOT critical of a certain film. A critic evaluates a phenomenon on the grounds of certain standards, and he can find that the object he critiques (rather than criticizes) can meet his standards. He, who critiques is a critic, not he who is critical of.Fossa 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

More word-parsing. You have selected one shade of meaning among many, and then by some osmosis, you have convinced yourself that is the only shade of meaning. It won't wash. wikipediatrix 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I use the most common meaning of the word. The Green Bay Packers are not "critics" of the Minnesota Vikings; they are their opponnents. Hillary Clinton is not a "critic" of Dubya, but his opponnent. If you still disagree, please, substatiate your interpreation with a dictionary. Fossa 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Hillary Clinton IS a critic of George Bush. They use that terminology constantly. "Critics of the Iraq War" are not people who sit around debating its usefulness, it's people who are openly opposed to it. Want proof? You keep telling me to check a dictionary. Here we go: from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

crit·ic n.

  1. One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.
  2. One who specializes especially professionally in the evaluation and appreciation of literary or artistic works: a film critic; a dance critic.
  3. One who tends to make harsh or carping judgments; a faultfinder.

Ah, a faultfinder. See. There you have it. Ta-da. End of the damn argument. --The reverend 08:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

5. "focusing on and": redundant Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

not sure what this is about. Explain? wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a phrase that does not add any additional meaning to the sentence; it's superfluous.Fossa 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know what "redundant" means. That wasn't what I meant when I asked for an explanation. wikipediatrix 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

6. "the ill effects of religious": "ill": value judgement; "effects" hard to measure; "religious": contested Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

this must have been fixed already also. wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

7. "so-called cults" vs. "cults": "Cult" is a laden term with a strong pejorative connotation: value jdgement-- Fossa 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that editors shouldn't call Scientology a cult, but if other people are calling Scientology a cult, then "so-called cults" is acceptable. wikipediatrix 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But that's exacytly my point: Scientology is a so-called cult."Fossa 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So-called by experts on cults, and so-called by former members who escaped. Glad we agree on this. wikipediatrix 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone remove the commas and add speech marks to "by, what he has called, the criminal and corrupt Church of Scientology."?

You're absolutely right on the commas. Looking for those words, so that I know which of them belong inside the quotation marks, I actually can't find them coming from Heldal-Lund, at least not on a first search, so I'm asking for a citation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norway fraud

I (Tilman) made the change re: civil fraud (which does of course exist, since one can sue another for fraud to recover the damage). For some reason I wasn't logged in. While I don't remember whether the Magne Berge case was indeed Andreas' motivation (wasn't it also free speech), it is the biggest case in Norway (or rather, the only one I ever heard about). Andreas has the same attorney as Magne Berge, and they have met each other.--Tilman 21:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fossa's arguments

Today Fossa's revert du jour states in its edit summary that Antaeus Feldspar does not address his arguments on the talk page. I don't really see much argument to address, and half of the matters Fossa complains about above seem to have already been taken care of. Considering that Fossa's latest edit seeks to remove what he calls "rumor" and ends up gutting half the article, I think it's rather hypocritical that Fossa has made no discussion of these changes here on the talk page. wikipediatrix 14:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Another day, still more edit-warring by Fossa, and still no discussion here. wikipediatrix 22:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars are always two-sided, and since it seems that you are the only one who reads my comments here, I put my arguments in the metatext. Personal websites and Usenet/Fora postings are simply inaccepatble sources for Wikipedia. For change, for good reasons Wikipedia-Critic

The question is moot anyhow, because I found a page on xenu.net with the same information and replaced the Usenet citation with it. You could have easily done the same thing with a five second Google search, but of course you prefer to remove the information outright. wikipediatrix 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I leave your misinformnation for the moment, but the information you presented is just as credible as the statement, I just uploaded on my webbsite. Fossa 23:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not as credible a source on the matter as Tory Christman. wikipediatrix 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I totally agree, but in this particular case, it's a different matter; I just put up that "information" on my website for the heck of it. And, obviously, it's false. So, in this specific case, Tory Christman and myself are equally credible. Fossa 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: I liked revert du jour; you are good with words sometimes; if only form would match the content. Fossa 01:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that such a critic of Wikipedia would be so dedicated to it. Are you a scientologist, Fossa? --Smoke002 04:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)