Talk:Purification Rundown
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] NPOV checklist
Problems to be overcome in order to achieve NPOV:
- No neutral references are cited (this may be difficult to overcome)
- The article is not about the Purification Rundown, per se, but about criticism of it. Article must focus on the titular subject
Re. point 2. The article might sound critical, but it's accurate (I say that having been made to do the "rundown" twice).
- If the article cannot be sufficiently fleshed out, the proper course of action may be to merge it into Narconon.
--Fernando Rizo T/C 19:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Well I got the second bullet covered I'll see what I can do about references. That makes two articles I need to go to the library over ;-) Wikired5 05:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- While it's true that we have more criticism of it than anything else right now, I think the solution has to be creating an article that includes the criticism and the support. With the understanding that the non-criticism sections of the article are going to be expanded, I've edited the intro so that it discloses early the fact that outside of Scientology, the Purif is considered not just unhelpful but dangerous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Additional to-do items
- Integrate material moved from Scientology beliefs and practices
[edit] Series Template
Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:55, 10 January 2006 (PST)
- Its probably good, I like it, LOL. others like it too.Terryeo 16:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Subjects is too anti-Point of View
I am going to remove all reference to and use of "subjects" in this article because a "subject" implies a relationship to the overseeing body which is not entirely volentary. In the case of the Purification Rundown, not only are the "subjects" volentary, but they have paid good money for the activities of the purification rundown. Would you call a man sitting in a chair getting a haircut a "subject?" Would you call a person who pays for and uses a health spa a "subject?" The word has overtones which, I believe, don't apply in this context. I'm going to change that element of this article. Terryeo 16:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] here we go again
Terryeo, you can't just stick a link to the Purification Rundown's official site after the first three words of the article, namely "The Purification Rundown...". There's no statement there to be sourced. And I know you know that, and yet here I am AGAIN wasting my time typing this to tell you what you already know, which is why I rarely bother discussing these matters on discussion pages with you anymore. wikipediatrix 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wasting your time indeed, why don't you go back to your office and blame the walls some more? Terryeo 04:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An action?
Terryeo, your edit seemed to indicate a singular action (such as going to a sauna), rather than a series of actions (sauna, taking vitamins, etc.) So I changed it to a "program". Ronabop 05:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
