Talk:Scientology Justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 31/7/2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
A user originating from 131.107.0.80, which is a microsoft proxy server, added a npov and clean-up template to this article. Without a discussion initiated by this unknown party, those templates were removed. --Fahrenheit451 22:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Let's stick to verifiable facts
Removing this paragraph:
Many Scientologists wonder how much justice there is in the Church of Scientology to "snarl about". It is interesting to note that David Miscavige routinely demotes and removes personnel under him by order alone, dispensing with any justice action, when L. Ron Hubbard's policy is explicit that a Comm Ev needs to be done to authorize such a measure.
This is heresay and no verifiable source. To state “many Scientologists” – who are we talking about? Sounds like apostates POV. I am a Scientologist and I don’t know any Scientologists that say this. --Nuview 11:30, 17 February 2006 (PST)
Sure, Nuview, if a member of the cofs did say something like that, they could be put under non-enturbulation order, comm ev'd, or declared a suppressive person. Interesting that you use the term "apostates". Your senior Mike Rinder does as well. Interesting POV you osa folks have, a Scientologist outside the cofs disagrees with you, and you label them "apostates". --Fahrenheit451 02:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Getting back to the article, Nuview has explained that a piece of information is not attributed, that is, it is not published, that is, it is not previously published to the public by a reliable and ruputable source. That's his point. An appropriate point, given WP:NPOV and WP:V and WP:RS, appropritely stated :) Terryeo 16:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV, sources
An article about Scientology Justice whose only 'references' are old policy letters from the 1960's is clearly faulty and probably deliberately skewed. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Those "old policy letters from the 1960's" are senior policy. If Hubbard didn't change or cancel them before he died, then they're stuck with them. AndroidCat 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "misused tags"
Antaeus Feldspar removed my "fact" tags and my "disputed" tag and said they were "misused". I'd like to know how this is so. Almost none of the important sentences have sources, and I DO dispute the NPOV of this article, so I don't see how it's someone else's place to remove the tag without a better explanation. Highfructosecornsyrup 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Update: on his talk page, Antaeus Feldspar said I didn't have a right to an explanation "When you're making high volumes of very obviously POV changes" and "I concentrate on undoing the damage first"! Wow. How are my changes "obviously POV"? What do you presume to think my POV is? What articles have I "damaged"? So much for WP:CIVIL and assuming good faith. How the heck am I supposed to dispute an article if you watchdog over it and refuse to let a "disputed" tag be placed on it, even though I explained myself on the talk page and you didn't? Highfructosecornsyrup 01:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] damned if I do, damned if I don't
First Antaeus Feldspar removes my npov/sources tags and says I'm too specific and overboard with all the citation needed notes. So I put them back without the cite-notes, and now Fubar Obfusco reverts me AGAIN, saying I need to be more specific. So it's a classic Catch-22: either way, I'm not allowed to dispute the NPOV and lack of sources that this extremely biased article has. Highfructosecornsyrup 05:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
