Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:SCN

Contents

[edit] Category:Scientology controversy

(moved from project page)

Looks intrinsically POV to me, shoving criticism into a corner. Fair Game (Scientology) arguably belongs in Category:Scientology beliefs and practices, considering the CoS defended it in court under that name - David Gerard 19:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair Game is in both these sub-categories. I actually regard the fact that articles can be placed in multiple sub-categories as largely preventing the corner-shoving effect -- assuming that the articles belong to the categories they're appropriate for, a controversial Scientology practice can be found in both Category:Scientology controversy and in Category:Scientology beliefs and practices, which is where it would be if Category:Scientology controversy didn't exist. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm very unsure about this, in that the WP:CLS guideline recommends that an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory. We could try to declare an exception for this project, but I'm really wary of using a wikiproject as an excuse for gratuitous policy/guideline/style variation - David Gerard 15:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, those two are next to each other, not one under the other :-) Nevertheless, something still feels not quite right about it ... - David Gerard 15:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Its a historical fact, not a real time situation, hence it probably doesn't belong in either. Why don't people understand, the Church lost enough court cases over it, modified the policies they operate under and don't engage in that any more. duh. Terryeo 20:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Zone and splinter groups

I was under the impression that "the Free Zone" was a blanket term pretty much encompassing all practice of Scientology not under the auspices/control of the CoS. However, List of articles on Scientology links to a number of splinter groups, which I am not sure would count as "Free Zone" any more than as CoS. How do other splinter groups relate to "the Free Zone" as the term is currently used? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It tends to be used that way by critics. (The CoS just calls 'em "squirrels.") But, for example, User:NicholasTurnbull is a non-CoS Scientologist who doesn't like being classed with the Free Zone. Is Category:Free Zone badly named? I'm not entirely sure! - David Gerard 12:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Really, in my opinion Category:Free Zone should be a sub category of Category:Independent Scientology organisations, perhaps. "Free Zone", the term, was originated by Captain Bill Robertson's lot, and it has particular connotations of rather an off-beat space opera approach to Scientology that I don't care for. See [1]:
The Free Zone is a term which was first made known by Captain Bill Robertson, a loyal follower of L. Ron Hubbard and of the Scientology religion and philosophy, to create an awareness that spiritual freedom can not be attended to while one's attention is fixated on those who would oppose such freedom. As such, the Free Zone can be defined as: A ZONE, or area, where spiritual awareness may bepursued FREE of outside or disruptive forces.
Not really my sort of thing, personally. --NicholasTurnbull 01:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I partly agree with Nicholas. Free Zone is a slang which basically refers to "Independent Scientology organizations." Category:Free Zone should be renamed to Category:Splinter Scientology organizations or something similar. Keeping the name Free Zone is not very professional. My opinion of course. Aloha --AI 22:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

If we do come up with a new category, we'd be well-advised to come to a consensus on which article(s) are held to "define" the category in the sense that WP:CLS uses that phrasing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology stubs

Does anyone know why Category:Scientology stubs is not showing up as a sub-category of Category:Religion stubs? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

NM, figured it out -- the sub-categories are sorted alphabetically and only appear on the page where stubs of the matching letter appear -- whichever page has the religion-stubs that begin with "S" will have the link to Category:Scientology stubs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Scientology participants

Listed participants David Gerard and Roger Gonnet (213.245.103.34) are critics of Scientology. How exactly do these critics intend to help NPOV Scientology articles? --AI 17:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

AI, I can understand your concern regarding critics writing articles about Scientology, but please rest assured that all participants to this project fully understand the implications of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that the goal of this project is specifically related to ensuring neutrality of Scientology related articles across Wikipedia. I am a Scientologist and a participant to this project, but I would still refuse to bias articles towards my own personal beliefs and would not permit others to do so. Perhaps if you are concerned about this matter, you might be so kind as to join our project and ensure that we maintain NPOV yourself? --NicholasTurnbull 00:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have joined the project and provide a POV. Unfortunately, as much as I work to discuss, people find it difficult to tolerate 1/20 of an article being an introduction which accurately states the subject extant in Scientology but want to stuff it with dispersion and controversy from the second word on. Terryeo 08:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of context

Just posting to a.r.s probably isn't enough, nor even a popular website unless it's Operation Clambake ... real-world influence, e.g. lawsuits, writing a book, frequent media (discussion needed) - David Gerard

That comment was listed with notable critics. What does this have to do with NPOV'ing Scientology related articles? It looks like part of an anti-scientology agenda. --AI 17:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

(moved comment from project page) --AI 16:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of what to fill out the critics' section with - in terms of who probably deserved an article and who didn't; rather than to do with NPOV or references, which I mention in the aims as areas Wikipedia could really excel in in writing about Scientology. I'm sorry you don't think it's possible, but as a CoS member your POV is very much needed in some of the stridently critical articles, particularly if you can do better in assuming good faith - David Gerard 21:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, the statement did not give proper context and leaves readers guessing. --AI 22:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I added a few names which fit the suggested criteria. --AI 22:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As a small note (most people don't do it anyway) there are some things on the internet which are not published (i.e. confidential and not published to the public). Because Wikipedia articles are to use published sources of information (i.e. "unimpeachable") infomrations citing unpublished (and especially Scientology Confidential information) should not be used. Terryeo 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Freezone and Independent Scientologists - cat?

Category:Free Zone is appropriate, but they should also be in one of Category:Scientologists or Category:Former Scientologists. It's not clear to me which would be more useful to the reader. Some of these people would say they're one and some would say they're the other, but I suspect that wouldn't be useful for someone trying to look them up - David Gerard 10:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV project

NPOV Review Project

This project would provide internal peer review of material generated by this WikiProject, to check for proper balance and NPOV. Also, this project would check existing articles on Scientological subjects and correct POV material as appropriate.

Can anyone tell me if there is another similar project so I can see a basic structure for this kind of task? I'm interested but I need to determine if there are any existing guidelines to help organize and accomplish this kind of task. - Tεxτurε 22:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi there Texture, I'm afraid there doesn't seem to be anything quite the same as my idea for an "NPOV Review Project" elsewhere on Wikipedia; however, there is Wikipedia:Wikiproject Removing POV from pop culture articles, which achieves more or less the same thing with pop culture articles to what we are looking for in Scientology material. I hope this helps. --NicholasTurnbull 00:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas, are there any articles in particular that need an NPOV check right away? Or should I be more focused on watch-dogging existing articles for POV changes? Fernando Rizo T/C 18:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Just look through articles in general. Many articles have too much of a pro-Church POV or a critical POV. I'd suggest flagging them on this project page rather than, e.g. cutting material if something looks askew to you - David Gerard 13:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Gawd, that any of the Dianetics and Scientology articles have anything but a hostile POV. lol. Really, not a one of them comes anything close to a realistic presentation of the information of the article's title. Terryeo 05:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, too many things which are actually NPOV get flagged one way or another as POV. For example, sentences which state explicitly a critic's belief or veiwpoint as belonging to the critic routinely seem to get reverted, to where mention of the critics as source of the opinion is omitted, and the critic's view is stated as fact. A NPOV should explicitely state the critics point of view as the critics point of view, and vice versa Ema Zee

I completely agree, Ema. Wiki policy says to do that and if we do that we can create realistic articles, even in this controversial area. Just by following Wiki policy ! I think it will come out that the CoS says a lot of stuff from verifiable information (published, websites, etc.) and critics will say what appears at first glance to be a lot of stuff from a very small handful of sites. This too is covered in Wiki policy and points toward that point of view which is verified best being the strongest arguement. Terryeo 00:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persons

I hope that you don't consider Gary Scarff notable enough to warrant an entry. -- llywrch 01:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

He is known as a critic of Scientology, but I doubt he's done or written anything worthy of labeling him as a notable critic. --AI 21:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead add him to the list --AI 22:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's much to say about him in regards to Scientology. He would be mentioned in relation to the Declaration of Garry Scarff, which was of some note as I recall, but what he's done since then is post to a.r.s. I suppose we'd write whatever article the declaration was relevant to and then see if there was really enough to break out Scarff as a separate article - David Gerard 14:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preventing duplication

I've been noticing a fairly large problem with duplication between articles. Obviously, it is not desirable to remove all duplication, but some contributors (mostly anons) will read an article, "realize" that it is "missing" some information on the subject, and put it in. ... I'm frankly not sure I know what to do about this, but I know it seems to be getting a bit worse lately. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Lots and disgustingly worse. Thetan has all kinds of redundancy with body and operating thetan. The Dianetics article practically says the exact same sentences twice in the first 5 lines. Terryeo 05:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Refactor as you find it, I guess. Wikilinks with a summary in brackets help avoid this, I suppose - David Gerard 00:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jive.exe

I first encountered jive and chef filters in 1996 when Deana Holmes used a filter of this kind to garble a quote from NOTS which she then published on Usenet, getting a few stern letters from lawyers for her efforts.

I've been editing a small article, Jive.exe, about this family of novelty programs, and it's been submitted for deletion. As for some reason its notability is being questioned, I'm not above doing a bit of delving to try and save it, I've been looking to see if it's been the occasion of any lawsuits. The nearest I got was Karin Spaink's account of being in court during one of the Zenon Panoussis hearings in Stockholm in 1998, in which she describes some filings made by one party or the other, one of which was a Swedish Chef parody of a NOTS document.

Any further information about the practice of jiving and borking would be welcome, as would edits to the article, and (of course, because I'm shameless in this regard) votes to keep the article. Think of it as a blow for the historical value of kitsch. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Schwarz

Barbara Schwarz is unhappy with her article. She has indiciated a desire for legal action, however likely or unlikely that may be; if someone who actually knows something about the subject could see that its contents are NPOV and verifiable, I'd appreciate it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mindspillage - I'll check the article out for you. Schwartz tends to make these sort of legal demands on a routine basis; rest assured, however, that they rarely (if ever) come to anything. I should be able to spot if there really is a problem, since I know quite a lot about this field. --NicholasTurnbull 01:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I have gone over the article carefully. Although it is written in a slightly negative tone, there is no NPOV violation present that I can find, and all facts stated are verifiable. Some sourcing could be added to emphasise this. There is, as far as I can determine, no scurrilous material present that could substantiate such a comment from Ms. Schwarz. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull 04:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, nothing is verifiable except to Barbara's postings. If we are going to base the article on her postings, then almost anything she writes can be used in the article. Currently the contributors are only using things about Barbara to make her look crazy and they ignore everything else. I think the article should mention the story how she was illegally removed from the Church of Scientology and kidnapped to a "psych hospital" and then "treated" against her will. --AI 09:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology vs. Wikipedia?

alt.religion.scientology has been receiving flames by the dozens attacking Wikipedia and smearing the reputation of Jimbo Wales. I hope we're not the ones responsible for this - if NPOV doesn't look favorable enough to the CoS there's nothing we can do about it, but anyone who's unhappy should bring it up through proper channels, instead of going on Usenet and trying to backstab the whole organization. - 206.114.20.121 22:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Scientology fanatics have a tendancy of trying to brute force their way through any situation and eliminate all resistance and counter-intention. It seems to have worked for them in the past, but Wikipedia is no place for a flame war. Fanatics on both sides of this issue are equally crazy in my book. Let's just hope they stay on Usenet and leave us to work on NPOV.

Flame On! Marbahlarbs 08:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Promoting the idea of Wikipedia vs. Scientology is propaganda by 206.114.20.121. The comment by Marbahlarbs serves no purpose but to support the propaganda, enflame bias, and encourage "original research" or "research" based on unreliable sources. --AI 09:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The stuff on a.r.s was mostly courtesy Barbara Schwarz, who is pissed off she's notable enough to get an article. AI was recently banned from Wikipedia for legal threats against the project - David Gerard 16:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion from Projects - Critical Books Coverage Project

Please take into consideration Beroul's opinion about sources. Beroul is coming from a totally neutral point of view and is the most significant contributor at Muslim Brotherhood. --AI 21:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, although academic contributors in the field of Scientology, and new religious movements in general, are notoriously problematic - see Stephen Kent's paper When Scholars Know Sin - David Gerard 13:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Sociologist Stephen Kent's ideas are disputed by other sociologists and many view him as a crackpot. I'm not buying this automatic "problematic" "reaction". --AI 23:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
A sociologist who criticizes those in his field who take money from the groups they're supposedly doing neutral, scholarly research on, being disputed and defamed by those "scholars" in return? What a shocking surprise. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
A privately paid sociologists disputing another sociologist's viewpoint does not necessarily indicate bias and their "neutral, scholarly research" doesn't have to be effected by the dispute over an alleged crackpot's viewpoint. --AI 08:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
So, basically, sociologists you haven't bothered to name have called Kent a "crackpot" and that anonymous imprecise insult automatically nullifies any significance to anything brought up by Kent? However, just because Kent has clearly documented how these scholars have gone about their research with a lucrative conflict of interest in their wallets, it doesn't "necessarily indicate" bias? Your double standard is just ridiculous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Antaeus, this is the last time I will remind you of WP:NPA. --AI 21:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Good for you; for the person who made this edit to even be mentioning the "no personal attacks" policy is rank hypocrisy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, while User:AI raised an actual, valid issue, the issue he raised is dispersed, defamed and generally mangled by Feldspar's subsequent reactions to AI's raised issue. Doesn't WP:NPOV cover this issue clearly enough? Terryeo 17:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Kent is considered a crackpot by some experts. Before basing any further research on Kent's ideas about Scientology, this fact should be taken into consideration if this Wikiproject team is serious about NPOV. Also, please see Beroul's opinion about sources. --AI 08:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because a book is critical of Scientology does not establish it's notability. It would be systemically biased for Wikipedia to accept any and all books critical of Scientology, and then to allow the deletion of articles on similarly non- or semi-notable books in another subject. Case in point: The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism is an apparently highly controversial book which is being voted for deletion because some people claim it is not notable. --AI 23:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

AI, we fully intend to only add those books which are notable enough to merit inclusion (e.g. those with a sufficient exposure and readership). Whatever other people have decided can be voted for deletion is beside the point, as notability can only be determined on a case-by-case basis and there is little to no method of creating a blanket rule on what is notable and what isn't. And besides, I hardly think it to be a problem if an article is created on a book which is subsequently nominated for deletion due to non-notability; the fact that things can easily be changed on a wiki is what makes such arguments quite unnecessary, since nomination on AfD is hardly a big deal. I can assure you that I shall be documenting LRH's books extensively as well, and the same notability criteria shall apply in both the supporter and the critic POVs. I appreciate your help in this regard. ARC, --NicholasTurnbull 00:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
OK then I assume you are intending to maintain NPOV by countering criticism by including the Scientology POVs (rebuttals). --AI 08:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
If anyone has a site which counts "number of copies sold" it would be helpful because it would spell out which books are noteable and which books are not.Terryeo 09:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shared watchlist?

I've been thinking for some time; there's a Template:Public watchlist that can be used to make a publicly editable page that works almost the same as a watchlist (there are some differences, but most of them have work-arounds.) Might this be a good addition to our Project? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This still seems like a good idea to me. If no one has objections I will start it sometime within the next few days. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] L. Ron Hubbard: popular psychology?

I've discovered that L. Ron Hubbard is listed at popular psychology as a proponent of popular psychology. I disagree with this characterization for the important reason that almost every other person on the list presented their claims as either supported by established psychology or at least not contradictory to established psychology. Hubbard was explicitly trying to establish his claims as supplanting all established theory on the workings of the mind. To me, this takes him out of the realm of popular psychology; however, I wanted to get opinions of others on the subject. Thoughts? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


While not currently popular psychology author like like Dr. Phil, Hubbard was a popular author and sold quite a number of Dianetics books before the original organization fell apart. So in his time in the early 1950's this was legitimate. Also, some stores seem to be categorising it there. Your milage may vary. Ema Zee

If stores are categorizing Hubbard as popular psychology today, that seems like a stronger argument than that he was considered popular psychology back in the 1950's, before he declared Scientology a religion. Still, in the context of the article, I think it actually works against people understanding what is meant by "popular psychology" to have Hubbard listed as an example. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Hubbard did have a therapy in Dianetics, but no, he did not consider it psychology. He actually had a very negative view of psychiatry and psychology. When it came to the test of being able to practice Dianetics and Scientology in 1950 through 1952 various States would not license anyone to use Dianetics unless the practitionar also had a PHD from an accredited university. This threatened to stop the expansion of the subject. When Hubbard discovered that the ideas of Scientology fit nicely into "religion" and that Ministers could councel without being prevented a very big problem was solved.

Any attempt to equate psychology and Scientology should not be condoned. --[[User:Pat Krenik}] 8:41 p.s.t. 9 January 2006

Seconded. CCHR is actively attempting to destroy psychiatry, that should be a sure clue about the Church of Scientology's position to even the most dense.Terryeo 09:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anti-Scientology differenticated from Anti-Church actions

It is quite common for those who are anti-Scientology, those who are anti-Church and those who are anti-Church actions to be lumped together as "anti-Scientology".

This suffers from the outpoint "Assumed Identities not Identical".

I would like to see, at the very least, a differentiation between anti-Scientology groups/people/statements/actions and anti-Church groups/people/statements/actions.

Well, this seems to be a good point to make in discourse, that is almost impossible to make in the category system. There is indeed a difference between opposing the belief system of Scientology and opposing the Church of Scientology, and I suppose there's a difference between opposing the Church and opposing the Church's actions (although I scratch my head trying to figure out why anyone would oppose the Church except for their actions). But since the Church of Scientology regards anyone opposed to the Church's actions as opposed to the Church, and anyone opposed to the Church (including Free Zoners) as opposed to Scientology, and anyone opposed to Scientology as a suppressive person who hates humanity, trying to classify groups/people/statements/actions in this manner would be endlessly controversial -- for, frankly, not a lot of actual gain to anyone that I can see. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The Free Zoners view themselves as scientologists or Hubbardists. Of course, each side considers the other apostates. Then there are other groups and people who just dislike Scientologists. Of course, you get fundamentalist christian groups who consider everyone outside their group as apostates, cultists, and what not. And you have the folks who hate organized religion in general. You could just lump them all together, it would be easier. But it probably needs to be sorted out. An inventory of sorts would be useful. Also note that not all critics have a heart of gold and glide about on Angles Wings, of course your milage will vary. Ema Zee

The problem is that getting it "sorted out" would be highly likely to run into the problem of original research. Reporting what people say their own motives are? That can be done in an NPOV fashion. Reporting what people say the motives of other people are? That can be done in an NPOV fashion (though of course it can also be done in an improper POV fashion, too...) But trying to determine what their true motives are and categorize them accordingly, as I understand the original proposal to be? I think that the principles of Wikipedia point very clearly in this case to restrict ourselves to reporting statements on motives, not endorsing them by making them the basis of a system of classification. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Childbirth

I happened to watch part of a Barbara Walters interview with Tom Cruise and the topic of childbirth came up. Specifically Walters asked whether there is a Scientology view on childbirth and something about the mother keeping quiet during labor, which Cruise essentially confirmed. Is this a topic which we should cover (or have we already?) -Willmcw

I would say we should but I don't know offhand where it should go. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
If I understand the concept behind it it is done in order to not create any engrams for the child at birth, so perhaps one could mention it in Scientology:_Beliefs_and_Practices#Reactive_mind_and_engrams (Entheta 15:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC))
If a person considers that an engram might exist and if a person understands what an engram consists of then and only then would a person be likely to understand why excessive noises, slaps on the baby, etc. etc. would matter, anyway. Terryeo 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zenon Panoussis rewrite

I did a relativly major rewrite to the Zenon Panoussis article. Could a few people read over it and make sure it sounds allright, is NPOV and properly formatted? -AKMask 14:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Egyptian born? I thought he was Greek - David Gerard 14:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology centers

This AfD has been open for five days, but since it is still active, it is probably still worth particpating in. Dave Gerard has argued that the page is important to this project, and it may be worth turning this list into a project page. --- Charles Stewart 15:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's survived by this >< much. But it's still a pretty crappy page. We need to turn it into something more than just a list of links. I've placed a link to my own page of Australian orgs - a detailed informative list format along the lines of my text list of orgs. Though that could be pretty resource-intensive. But note the historical and documentary orientation - something like that could be just the thing, IMO.
The list also needs a better title. "List of Scientology organizations" may or may not be just the thing, if we mean "offices" or "centres", as "org"/"organisation" is a Scientology jargon word as well. - David Gerard 12:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, buggrit, I've unilaterally moved it to List of Scientology organizations, with an explanation as to the Scn usage of "org" (though a quoted definition would be just dandy) - David Gerard 15:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV watch

Neutral point of view is going to be a tricky one on this subject - remember that these articles should be useful to both Scientologists and strident critics as well as the general reader. So I've placed a section called "NPOV watch". I've added the list article because I've used my own site as a reference, and I'd like other eyes on it for that reason. Please note articles that you think need NPOVing if you don't have time to do it yourself. (And please don't be too procedural if someone removes the article from the list.) - David Gerard 16:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the mainstay of difficulty to be resolvable by WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories. I believe the constant back and forth editing and reasons for dispute revolve around whether a particular cited information is a theory or a datum. That link gives us conflict resolution. We should use the discussion pages to resolve what is theory. We should then present it as theory. When it comes to datums that are not theory, which are either straight beliefs, or, alternatively, as known as apple pie then we deal with that datum in another way. For example, the term, "mental energy". It can be a confusing term because "mental" in western dictionarys usually is something about the brain. So the term would mean, "energy about the human head" and has almost no useful meaning. While in Dianetics, "mental energy" is meant to refer to any sort of thought or energy which a thought manifests. Separating out the theory from what is commonly known in discussion pages will lead to good articles, I think. Terryeo 21:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] o

I understand the core from which Wiki is built has one and only one policy. NPOV and that is spelled out for what it is to mean at wiki:NPOV Philosphically I believe it is the best possible policy for Wikipedia. With regards to non-controversial articles it works fine. Wiki ends up with clean, easy to read and understand articles, enlightening articles. But in the CoS area it seems to be watered down to: "We dare post neither sides full claim but must confine ourselves to non-offensive segments of partially quoted, rarely cited information. For example, The Cos will state, obviously from their point of view, a situation. According to NPOV, that source of information and its information could be posted as part of an article. Fortunately, other points of view exist. However, other points of view of CoS statements (such as "millions sold" or "8 million members") are not citied as well. For example it is equally good POV information to cite the New York times as saying, ".....says it is unlikely there are 8 million members." Now that is NPOV because it presents opposing points of view and both with equally good citations. It is then up to the reader to decied which is more valid. My objection and question here is: Why are people insisting that no stong statement, (If it is stated in writing and cited it is not a claim but a statement) that no strong statement of CoS makes be presented? I'm particularly asking because my exhaustive list of Dianetics books have been deleted, though they are very well cited. I'm like, hey, this is one POV. You got another, Put it up there too but allow this one, don't water it down! Terryeo 13:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Taking a look at this edit (which I am guessing you are referring to): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dianetics&diff=32942556&oldid=32936492 , and the related history of these edits being added and removed, I would suggest the following portions of the text might have been problems for some editors (as seen in their summaries):
"However, it was accepted broadly by the public at large."
This is something of a statement of opinion, without attribution to *who* is making the statement.
At last I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it! If you bring that link just above up, you read the things you mention. But, if you read through the information you see at the bottom of each offensively quoted information two of these '{' and a referenced footnote which, on the article shows up as a link of where that quote came from. It is a footnote link, I referenced each of the statements of this discussion with a footnote spelling out A. from a scientology book What is Scientology and its ISBN, etc. The problem arises by reading the link above instead of the article the link above points toward because in the article the references show up but when not viewed by a browser as an article, the mark-up shows which makes it less easy to see the footnote. I used a complete set of footnotes and footnote references. Terryeo 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
"Tens of thousands of copies were circulated all over the world, mostly by the public themselves duplicating and even retyping it with carbons."
Rather than clearly stating that Hubbard, or the CoS, or anyone in specific was making the *assertion* that tens of thousands of were circulated, and retyped with carbons, the article had a tone stating this assertion as an accepted fact. Rephrasing the above two lines so we include competing POV without stating one POV as fact, and the other as a "claim":
"According to Mr. Hubbard[citation needed], it was 'accepted broadly by the public at large', with 'Tens of thousands of copies ...circulated all over the world, mostly by the public themselves duplicating and even retyping it with carbons.'"
See the difference? If the New York Times had claimed that there were only 100 copies made, we don't say "There were over 10,000 copies made. However, the New York Times claims there were only 100 copies ever made." Let's examine another sentence:
"It remains a best seller nearly 50 years after its initial publication, a feat unparalleled in publishing history."
Again, this is stated as a raw fact, rather than an assertion being made by any particular person or organization (The bible, BTW, has remained a best selller quite a bit longer than 50 years, so there might be *some* parallells... ;-) ). Let's see what we can do with it:
"According to its publisher, Bridge Publications [citation needed], 'It remains a best seller nearly 50 years after its initial publication, a feat unparalleled in publishing history'"
It doesn't appear to be so much an issue of removing any strongly phrased statements, but an issue of trying to keep articles from having contentious claims of fact being placed into the articles without qualifying who was making the claims, or how to verify those claims. This is somewhat covered by both WP:CITE and WP:V Ronabop 15:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I have understood what you said, Ronabop and your example is an excellent example of the point I wanted to talk about. CoS says something, how should it be cited? According to Wiki policy it should be cited exactly as said because if it is cited in any modified version it is not then a "fact." Wiki defines a fact (my undertanding) as a cited piece of information. It is wrong restate a quote because then it is no longer a quote. It is no longer a Wiki "fact" and it is then original research. However, a quote need not be used in full, portions can be left out which are not used in conveying the main informaiton the "fact" is meant to convey. In the particular quote we are talking about we can remove the more extreme CoS statements and portions of statemets and arrive at a NPOV. Such as: "..thousands of copies were distributed all over the world, mostly by the public themselves duplicating and even retyping it with carbons" Would you say, do you get my meaning? It is cited as something the CoS has stated, it is in their book which is cited. So then, what more reminder would anyone need of its source? In that sense it is a "fact" as Wiki defines "fact" which may be included in an article. I do see your point of view about about vast distributions, claimed by one side with no possible documentation by any other side. Terryeo 20:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand you. I'm guessing this is a WP:RS problem (boy, we sure have a lot of rules now, built up over the few years we've been around.) I've grown used to them, having been around as they were created. But first, let me address some other points you have raised.
'According to Wiki policy it should be cited exactly as said because if it is cited in any modified version it is not then a "fact."'
Like most other sources of information, Wikipedia does not demand (AFAIK) *exact* quotes, instead, standard quote conventions are often used. So, if an article is about a guy named Bill, a quote that read "That moron doesn't know what he's talking about" can be written as "[Bill] doesn't know what he's talking about." Likewise, words non-essential to the essence of a quote can be replaced with "...", in order to explain that there are missing words, such as "That moron is a nutjob, a total loser, he doesn't know what he's talking about" can be shortened (as above) to "[Bill]... doesn't know what he's talking about". If a quote *is* modified in such a way as to significantly alter the meaning, that's grounds for a POV objection (such as creating intentional misqoutation, i.e. Turning "He is a brilliant loser, a total lack of genius" to "He is a ... brilliant ... genius", but it's rare that such a thing happens, outside of the more contentious pages.
Getting back to a "fact", we run into the issue of WP:RS. It *is* most possibly a fact (AFAIK, I don't have the book) that a CoS publication has stated "Tens of thousands of copies were distributed all over the world, mostly by the public themselves duplicating and even retyping it with carbons". But is it actually a verifiable fact, from reliable sources, that tens of thousands of copies were distributed all over the world, mostly by the public themselves duplicating and even retyping it with carbons? How would we possibly *independently* verify such a thing? Are there multiple, non-biased, sources making that statement? Did somebody (who?) do a survey of all of the copies that were made, and count each individual copy, made by each person? Did they count which were carbon copies? Duplo copies? How do we know that there weren't only 10 copies made, or as many as 10 billion copies made? We seem to have only one source, which doesn't help. What if that one source lied?
No argument, an appropriate portion of a statement is a cited statement and is therefore a fact. What problem am I creating by calling a cited statement (for Wiki purposes) a fact? This is exactly how Wiki defines an includable fact (using the word fact) at: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#A_simple_formulation which says the following. "Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." I'm prefectly willing to have what is being discussed as inflammatory portions of my list of statements removed. They do not contribute to the validity of Dianetics as a subject which is the information I mean to communicate by posting a historical book list. Terryeo 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
As far as why this (faith sources) is an issue in wikipedia, let me jump away from just scientology for a second, and invent a scenario: Somebody comes into the scientology articles and says "Scientotologists are damned, because salvation is 'through christ alone' New testament". Did they cite a source? Yes. Did they quote the source? Yes. Is it a source used by millions of people everyday? Sure. Is it true? It's true to its believers, but, well, the source has a vested interest in proving itself, in proving its own validity. Thus, it's a less reliable source about actual facts (and a better measure of what believers would believe as a "fact"). That's why I would delete or edit any text from any page which asserts a *fact*, which is not premised upon an outside (of the faith) fact, but rather, an internal statement which cannot be externally verified from the outside. Ronabop 11:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
First of all, the bible does not mention Scientology, of course. Wiki policy clearly spells out exactly how these sorts of facts which are quoted from a source are to be presented. It is not your task as editor to remove cited quotations. Rather it is your task, with your POV to counter or in other ways mitigate them by including into an article those facts (which you appropriately cite and document and link, etc) which are from other sources. Then the whole of the article develops a balanced presentation any person can read. This philosophy of Wiki is called NPOV, it is non-negotiable. One cited source is a fact and it is to be balanced against another cited source which is a fact. That Wiki policy is: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth (verifiability , not truth) and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight which define how cited quotations (facts) are to be presented to arrive at a NPOV. I intend to follow Wiki policy and expect everyone to. Terryeo 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent explanation, Ronabop. There is an additional problem in that Terryeo claims that he did cite the sources for his quotes; however, he failed to mark them as quotes -- even when they were taken word-for-word from the source -- so the reader has no way of knowing which statements are being attributed to that source. Thus, instead of "Scientologists are damned, because salvation is 'through Christ alone' New Testament", an even more acute comparison might be "Scientologists are damned, because salvation is through Christ alone New Testament": even if the reader realizes that this statement presented as fact is actually the POV derived from the New Testament, they won't know which portions are being cited. Did the New Testament mention Scientologists by name and claim them to be damned? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello again Antaeus Feldspar, good to talk with you again. I believe the difficulty you spell out arises from how a referenced footnote and quote appear in an article compared to how the same appears as mark-up. If you will (don't like to intrude into your patience) look at the link above you have so accurately provided I think you will see that I did bullet and reference with a footnote, each item in question. By the way, my intent to include a historical booklist does not necessariy mean inflammatory (lol) sorts of statements which appear as I origninally stated them, need appear in the article at all. I just want the book list because it is more in keeping with Wiki policy than the extremely brief (and from my point of view) biased list of 3 or 4, mostly unpublished titles. Terryeo 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I see this is about "biased sources" and any quote, however perfectly done is from a single "biased source", unbalanced by secondary, unbiased sources of information. Terryeo 21:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contents of the shared watchlist

I've finished adding most of the articles that were in Category:Scientology or any sub-cat. The only categories I haven't done this for are Category:Scientologists and its subcat Category:Former Scientologists. The reason why not is that a lot of the entries may not be so relevant to Scientology that we'd want notification every time they change. Some are obvious (Heber Jentzsch, David Miscavige, etc.) and some are slightly less obvious but still probable (Tom Cruise gets edited regularly to reflect his campaigning for Scientology causes). Others, however, like Bernadette Peters -- their articles don't mention a thing about their Scientology invovement, beyond having the category tag. Which of them do we put on the watchlist? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Bernadette Peters? Oh no... How come i never heard about that? I thought I'd read the scientology celebrity faq. What about Karen Black, btw? Someone removed her from the "former scientologists" category, and it seems whenever I ask noone can tell for sure whether she's still in or not. Sometimes I hear she's OT5 or OT7 or and CCHR spokesperson, sometimes I hear she's quietly left the CoS in good standing, and a while ago her wikipedia article said she had denounced scientology.
Looking at the Scn celeb faq[2] again, it lists no status for Bernadette Peters.
Anyway, to try to answer your question, I don't see the need to have every Scientology celebrity on the public watch list. Maybe the big spokespeople like Cruise, but not every single one.(Entheta 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC))
I was almost tempted to create a new sub-category on the fly, Category:Scientology officials, since everyone in that category would pretty clearly be watchlist material and would leave fewer boundary cases. But since cleaning up a poorly named category is not solvable with a simple move like a poorly named page is, I thought it best to bring it up here, see if anyone could find a better name, maybe one that includes high-profile Scientology promoters like Cruise and Travolta. Scientology representatives, perhaps? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It is beginning to sound like an article about the complex and - difficult to assimilate in a sitting - Scientology Organization is in the wind. Sea Org, Advanced Orgs, Missions, RTC, and lots more make a complex intermix which obviously produces income and works. But the whole area is strewn with buzz words and it is wonderfully easy to be misled. My impression is, Scientology has a handful of "officials" whom represent CoS position to the public but their being in the public eye, like many CoS jobs, is probably specialized. For all I know they might be in a single, dedicated Scientology Org. The way I get it, internal stuff is not easily unraveled and has changed significantly since Hubbard dropped his body. Terryeo 00:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative Religions Template

Please visit this template I'm working on to go at the bottom of all of the major religious pages as a way to facilitate comparative religion research. Leave your comments on its talk page. Thanks! --Mareino 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Template Addition

I added the series template in many places, please change/clean-up as needed. Ronabop 11:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This giant, elaborate, overwhelmingly mammoth template is actually one of the less awful ones I've seen on Wikipedia. That's about as close to a compliment as is possible from me on the matter of huge, bulky, brightly-colored linkboxes, so I'm fairly impressed with its aesthetics and utility. Where you erred, however, is in adding this friggin' goddamn holy crap huge box to sooo many articles: it's only needed on one or two at most, honestly. For example, if you simply put it on the top of Scientology (though there's an argument to be made for putting a good image at the top of that article instead and just putting the infobox in the "see also" section), you don't need to use the infobox in every article that at all relates to Scientology: you simply need to link to Scientology, and voila! An easy, simple, compact way for anyone interested in general, various Scientology topics to click on a link and be provided with the infobox immediately. Much saner way to handle such things, in my view. But anyway, good job on the Scientology stuff in general! Keep up the good work :o -Silence 10:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a public template for a reason. :-) Please fix, clean up, expand, reduce, whatever. Bulk deleting from articles, however.... well, that just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Ronabop 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't bulk delete it from articles. I went to every single article you put it on (and there were quite a lot) and noted where the article conflicted with the already-existing page layout there, which it did in dozens of cases; when you added the template to articles, apparently you didn't take the time to then preview how it would look in most cases, you just pasted it into the very beginning of the text, saved, and moved on to the next page.
Actually, in most cases, I did preview. I work on big screens, with tiny text, however, so it looks like I missed some problem areas. In addition, as other people added to the template, it rapidly grew in both length and width. Ronabop 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This caused problems when (A) there was an image for the article lead, often causing the image to be pushed far, far down even though most people will be more interested in an aesthetically pleasing, specific, and useful lead image than in a repetitive infobox on every single article of a certain topic—when this happened I typically moved the template to lower-down on the page, or removed it altogether if there was no room; (B) there was a cleanup tag on the article, which caused the cleanup tag to be truncated strangely where the two conflicted—when this happened I switched the order of the templates so the cleanup tag would go above the article images, tags, etc., as it should;
Oh, good catch. I didn't see it clashing on my screens. Ronabop 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
(C) the article was tremendously short, often no more than a two or three smallish paragraphs long + a few references and links, and the box extended the length of the page unnaturally, misleadingly, unnecessarily, and in an aesthetically displeasing way.
Mind you, I'd have preferred to delete it from more of the articles, but I restrained myself to only editing it or removing it from the ones where there was an obvious and immediate layout problem caused by its presence on the specific page, even though for most of the other pages there's also the problem that it's not especially useful because anyone can simply click on any of the Scientology links that are no doubt well-placed throughout the page to find the same infobox and use it there, without all the inefficient and redundant space consumption on sooo many articles. (Isn't stuff like this what, huge assortments of links, what thinks like Categories and Portals are there for? I can understand a series box for things where there's an actual series, and not an overly large one, like the "history of Poland" series, but "Scientology" is a broad and complex topic, not a series)
What I had in mind was similar to other religion series, which are broad and complex, as well. Ronabop 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a clear difference between "make every page a stand-alone" and "assume our readers are total morons"; these infoboxes are crossing the line into the latter, and there doesn't seem any reason at all to do so. -Silence 16:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Ronabop, I want to thank you first for creating the template. However, with some time to think about it, I have to say I'm siding here with Silence -- tagging too many articles with this just makes it redundant with the category system. I think it's probably better if we talk here about what distinguishes articles that should get the template from those that shouldn't, and then about how to make it as minimally disruptive as possible. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
And I finally get to this page after making some more edits... I'm definitely going to be less "bold" about future edits. As far as redundancy with categories go, I think it's a matter of how people use wikipedia, as I often find navigating through categories not-very-helpful. For example, at Category:Scientology I can't tell if Adolphine is as important to the topic as Free Zone . And yes, we should talk about what does, and doesn't, belong, and being a controversial topic, it'll take some discussion to get things settled. Ronabop 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Having it at the top of Scientology, at the very least, seems quite reasonable, not only because this is the central article of the entire topic (and thus anyone who clicks on any link to Scientology will immediately see this template and have complete access to its links, making it unnecessary to put the template on every Scientology-related article when a simple link to Scientology would do), but also because it's decorated by the Scientology logo at the top, which previously was not featured prominently enough in that article. However, for the same reason, it is problematic to put this image at the top of Church of Scientology, because the Church has its own, also noteworthy, logo, which should be featured at the top in its own right.
Well, I happen to find that specific cross logo in the top of the Church of Scientology article to be somewhat unprofessional in it's presentation (it looks hand drawn?), but beauty is in the eye of beholder. :-) When putting the template together, I grabbed what I thought was the new, 1995, church logo[3], and I wasn't aware that there was a "conflict" between logos (?). Ronabop 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, a discussion is indeed in order regarding which pages should have the template and which shouldn't (my thinking is "simplicity is best", i.e. "less is more", i.e. the less the template is used the better, but I'm certainly willing to compromise on where it should go), but I think there are a few articles where it's truly unacceptable to include the template: a single glance at Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Symbols of Scientology, etc. shows how haphazardly this template has been copy-pasted to all the articles involved (and then restored in a series of mass reverts by Ronabop after I tried to fix and delete many of them).
My apologies for the haste. I hadn't seen calm discourse on why you were making the changes you did, and it looked to me like a mass edit without forethought. Digging deeper, yes, let's discuss before making big sweeping changes. Symbols of Scientology crunches up against the page, and I pulled it again from the Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health page, though I didn't see much wrong with the page, other than being a stub. Ronabop 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I also feel that including the template on very small articles is a terrible idea, because it bloats the articles unnaturally and creates lots of poorly-formatted white space stretched from the bottom of the page by the overlong templates. Anyway, some other possibilities to consider:
Ah, that explains probably *most* of the edits where I couldn't understand why you reverted. I happen to like a lot of negative space in wikipedia articles (it leaves future editors 'space to fill in"), but that's more of an issue of personal taste. Even better might be expanding the articles over time (of course), and/or keeping the template from filling up with non-essential links to the subject matter, so the template isn't bigger than the whole article. Ronabop 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Trimming the template down, compressing it, and making it horizontal more than vertical, and putting it in the "See also" section for lots of articles, in a similar manner to the template used in the "See also" section of all the Hugo Chavez articles. The only major reason it's currently unfeasible to put it in a lot of article's "see also" sections is because it'll unnaturally extend the page length and really is overall overly heavy; if it wasn't so durned big, I'd have gladly moved it to the bottom of almost all of the Scientology articles. As-is, other solutions are needed (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since even including the template at the bottom of articles, for example, like the Charles Darwin articles do, would risk redundancy with the Scientology categorization system).
I like this horizontal idea as one possibility, though it might require a re-crawl of all of the linked articles for formatting (thanks for catching what you did). It's vertical for the sole reason because the other religious ones I looked at were vertical. As the template has grown, I've gone in and tried to tune it for size, but it grew darned fast. Ronabop 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Breaking the template up into a bunch of smaller templates for use in the specific topics. This has been used on, for example, the Greek mythology articles, and has been remarkably effective. The idea is, have one main template for use on Scientology, like the one we have now, and then have a bunch of smaller templates for specific areas of Scientology, and only include that smaller template in the articles dealing with those subareas. So, for example, we'd have Template:Scientology Beliefs, which would link to Xenu, Operating Thetan, Clear, etc. and only be included in those articles listed, and that template would also link to Scientology so someone could easily backtrack to the main, fully-expanded template. In fact, if we were to divide the template, I think this would be one good system: have one template for "Beliefs and Practices", one for "Public groups, Recruitment and Organization", and a third one for "Controversy"—which, by the way, should probably have Xenu removed since that's already listed under "Beliefs". In fact, we may want to consider removing the "Controversy" section altogether, since it's rather POV to label certain articles as "controversial" or "controversy-related" and thus implicitly state that the other articles aren't controversial. We shouldn't tell people what to think. Plus many of the "Controversy" articles really belong under "Beliefs and practices" ("and terminology", perhaps?) (e.g. "Suppressive Person," "Fair Game", "Xenu") or under "Organization" (e.g. "Rehabilitation Project Force", "Office of Special Affairs"). The only ones that don't really obviously fit anywhere except "Controversy" are the "Operations" and the last two, legal system and Internet. But anyway, if we could integrate even those into the rest of the template, we could possibly end up with one main template, and two sub-templates that are only half as large and would thus be much easier to use on a few more articles than just Scientology: one template for general beliefs and practices, and one for the Church of Scientology's organizations and programs and such. Or maybe that's a terrible idea, since it's not like "practices" is especially distinct from "programs and organizations", and it would be better to just keep it all on one template, but to use my earlier suggestion of only having the template on a very small number of articles (or maybe just one?), chiefly Scientology, which anyone can then visit easily to get all the links involved. Could go either way; just brainstorming.
Breaking up the template: Another good idea, as it happens to a lot of religion templates of time. When I first put it together and started deploying it, it was fairly simple and unobtrusive [4], but that's changed quite quickly with other editors adding things in [5]... I'm not sure why an editor put Xenu in there twice. User:Modemac added in the controversy section[6], and I'm not quite sure it belongs in the template myself, as I was basing the template on other religious templates. It's (the Controversy section) come up for discussion on a couple of pages already. As far as stripping out the template from most articles, I find myself using templates to navigate through a large subject quite often, rather than links, because I expect a template to give me the core information about a broad topic/series in one place, while article links may be giving me core information or ancillary information, and I almost never find category navigation helpful... but each person work differently. Ronabop 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. There are also some changes that clearly need to be made to the Template itself: The hypertext "Beliefs" simply links to the Belief article, obviously an unrelated topic altogether, instead of linking to the natural article that anyone clicking "Belief" there would expect Scientology beliefs and practices. Putting the link text in blue is also a bad idea, as some people will be tricked into thinking that it's an active link when they're already on the article that it links to. Additionally, "This article forms" is very strange wording. As for the article selection itself: There are some articles that may be worth considering removing from the template if we decide to trim it down, and there are also some non-insignificant (though perhaps not noteworthy enough) articles that haven't been included in the template, like List of Scientology references in popular culture, Symbols of Scientology; that may be something to discuss. Other articles are much more glaring and strange ommissions, like Free Zone, Scientology and psychiatry and List of Scientology organizations (the latter could be the link from the "Organization" header, perhaps). And, of course, we could always consider linking to L. Ron Hubbard and possibly other extremely noteworthy-to-Scientology individuals, though this is another debatable matter, and we should be very careful not to overlink; people can find the non-vital Scientology articles on their own, that's what "See also", in-article links, and Categories are for. -Silence 21:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, and now you see some artifacts from the template I cribbed this from... check out the first revision for a laugh [7] Yup, there is still some brokeness there. The Belief thing was something I was going to change, but forgot (fixed now). "This article forms" is from that template, too. I picked some initial colors, and didn't think as much about text color and styling at first, it's a good thing we have other editors who think abut such things ;-) . As far as *what* articles belonged in the template itself, for starters, I just guessed based on what I saw in other religion templates (what are the beliefs, practices, places and organizations involved), put a template up, asked for feedback, got some, deployed it, and oh boy, do I have feedback now! :-) . As it's been getting deployed, editors have been changing, and adding (but rarely deleting) various links to articles... I was happy with short acronyms. There hasn't been much discussion until recently on what topics do, and don't, belong in the template (Yeah, I got feedback), and some editors have just "been bold" and worked on their own discretion... here's the feedback I got on the template page itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:ScientologySeries which hasn't been much to go on. Then there's people discussing the template on article pages, on my talk page, everywhere but the template page... whee! Ronabop 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I have done a little bit of re-arranging toward making the template narrower and less intrusive, but it is a line longer now. The other complementary templates that might be formed would possibly be: Dianetics (mind, mental image picture, memory, engram, reactive mind, analytical mind); Public Activity (ABLE, CCHR, Criminon, Narconon, etc); Scientology Organization (RTC, Advanced Orgs, Gold Base, Saint Hills, Class V Orgs, Missions of Scientology, Dianetic Auditing groups, Flagship Appollo, Flag, Church of Scientology International, OSI, etc). whew, I'm out of alpha soup for the moment. Terryeo 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag Land Base

Flag Land Base redirects to Church of Scientology. Shouldn't it rather redirect to Fort Harrison Hotel or perhaps Flag Service Organization (which however doesn't exist yet? (Entheta 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

As I understand it, Flag Land Base is a central organization. It consists, in part, of the Fort Harrison Hotel but includes several other buildings, even of similar stature. Without doubt it is the single most organizationally complete and complex manifestation of the Church of Scientology on the planet. It includes the Flag Service Org. It isn't wrong to direct it to Church of Scientology but an article of its own would probably be appropriate. I understand there was a good deal, still is, of controversy about the city and the base establishing itself. Terryeo 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes there certainly was some controversy. A little info on Wikipedia about this can be found at Church_of_Scientology#Flag_Land_Base.2C_Clearwater.2C_Florida and some at Fort Harrison Hotel. I don't know enough about this to start a separate article about Flag Land Base, but if someone else can, maybe it's a good idea, or what do others think? Is it unneccessary? (Entheta 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
For my 2 cents, don't bother. It seems like the threshold for creating an article on here is "Is there controversy" instead of Wikipedia's standard which might be phrased as, "Is there a subject a person would want to know about?" I wouldn't bother, myself. It would just mean that those who are convinced that Scientology was long ago "debunked" and the millions of dollars worth of property the Church now owns is a farce, built on a base of farces, will of course create the article(s). And then along will come hardworking people and, seeing the fallacies and falsehoods and POV, attempt to bring them into accurate standards toward which every encyclopedia strives. I would say, "don't bother" Terryeo 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harvey Jackins

For a very long time, Harvey Jackins has been in Category:Free Zone and had a {{Scientology-stub}} tag. There appears to be pretty solid evidence (a photostatic copy of an application for incorporation) that he was involved with Dianetics in its early days; there is also apparently (by the admission of even the party who disputes that it is true) a perception that Re-evaluation Counseling is Dianetics or a fairly close derivative thereof. Recently some new users and anon users have been removing large chunks of information from the article, claiming that because they know "RC = Dianetics" to be wrong, it justifies their removing mention of it rather than addressing the perception.

Their editing behavior is wrong, but that doesn't make their claims necessarily wrong; looking at it with no previous knowledge of Jackins, co-counseling, or Re-evaluation counseling, about the only things I can be sure of is that Jackins was involved in Dianetics in the 1950s (as were a lot of people at that time, before the fad died off) and that the terminology Jackins used in later work seems very similar to that of Dianetics. Can anyone look into the Dianetics-related portions of these articles and re-write them in NPOV fashion so that, as WP:NPOV states, the disputes are characterized, not enacted? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"the fad died off?" hahahahaha. Terryeo 04:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the fad died off. Or are you claiming that fifty years later Dianetics is still a fad? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I laughed because of a recent lecture of Hubbard's that I listened to. Not long after that time period he addresses the fad status and its treatment by "renowned" persons of that time, especially psychiatrists. They too viewed it as a fad at the time. And further, after they came out so strongly against its "scientific status", against the obvious "impossibility" of man being a spirit and not a meat body, against treating the mind in any way except as a manifestation of a brain, it dropped from the public attention. Psychiatry had thought they had debunked it. I laugh becuase its perception as a fad has little or no reality with its use. One has only to notice Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health is still a well sold book to know Dianetics is more than a "fad". Hula Hoops were a fad. Long greasy male hair was a fad. Dianetics has more users today than it did 10 years ago, more 10 years ago than 20 years ago, etc. I laugh because it is anything but a fad. lolTerryeo 15:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're erroneously inferring things I never said and wasting your time and mine trying to debunk them. The statement "There was a fad for X" does not mean "X was never anything but a fad". The fact is that there was a large surge of public interest of Dianetics in the 1950s, and then, by your own admission, "it dropped from the public attention." Since that is pretty much the definition of a fad, all your further burbling about "Psychiatry long greasy hair hula hoops meat body thought they debunked it 'scientific status' 'renowned' 'impossibility'" is rather pointless. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hahahaha Terryeo 13:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Watchlisted, I've done more work with RC than Dianetics, but the two are, well, fabulously un-related in many ways. Just about the only thing I can see as far as commonalities are all considered somewhat basic psychiatry and psychology concepts now (which both groups claim they are *not* doing.)... talk therapy as a method of working through past issues, spiritual/emotional growth through examining one's history, historical problems having lingering effects, etc. etc. RC is a tad like CoS/Dianetics auditing, only without an e-meter, or a "trained auditor", or required auditor training courses (RC does sell them), or a large fundamental set of literature about the church/practices... IOW, what Dianetics and RC *do* have in common is non-medical professionals talking to each other about their "deep issues". Which, of course, also means that my average friday night at the bar is also close to both of them. ;-) Ronabop 08:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Its really very simple. You talk to a person you trust about your problems. They listen to you. People do this all the time. The difference has only to do with how skilled the listener is. The Catholic confessional is an example that has worked for a long time. Freud begin with listening to his patients. It wasn't until later that evaluation was added. People do this all the time, it is so obvious that you can help a person by listening to them. Dianetics developed the theory further, removed any evaluation and learned when to listen, what sort of questions might be helpful, when to insert them, etc. Its really very simple. An engram is just a problem the person has not quite been able to work out for themselves. Its really very simple. To dismiss it as a fad just makes me laugh. Terryeo 15:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

acknowledge there was a fad != dismiss as a fad bzzt thank you for playing drive through. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
eying the book sales and continuing to laugh. LOL. Terryeo 18:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Seconding request for assistance on this. No, Terryeo, going off onto useless tangents is not "assistance". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Read the above with interest. It is certainly true that Jackins was initially associated with Dianetics and appears to have been LRH's co-ordinator in Seattle (at the same time as the more famous A E Van Vogt - whom Jackins knew) was co-ordinator in LA. (some independent confirmation of this from people living in Seattle and Portland, Oregon was obtained by me which backed this up). The relationship appears (from various sources I have gleaned over the years as both a practising RC member from other RC people and also as ain independent-minded sceptical person doing my own researches using the internet and other means over more than 10 years) to have had a big-bust up and LRH specifically denounced HJ in one of his many wierd letters to the FBI, CIA, etc, or anyone he thought might listen. Can't finally confirm this split other than the Clambake document, 1957 (FBI officer laughably refers to LRH in the letter: "In the past, letters from L. Ron Hubbard, who operates The Academy of Scientology, have not been acknowledged because of his possible mental instability and rambling and incoherent nature of his letters.")(!) The split was confirmed in the addition of RC to suppressive list. MarkThomas 12:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On the broader question - does RC = Dianetics - I think some of the comments above on the equivalence of talking/listening to confessional have it about right. RC emphasises listening, giving positive regard, good attention, asking questions but not being threatening, etc, etc. These are designed to assist clients to review their thoughts and feelings. There is no "wierd technology" involved, no expensive auditing sessions, etc. The comment above that RC has "auditor training" is false. RC has people called "teachers" who do not have to spend money on courses. The training required is (a) very many one-to-one co-counselling "sessions" which are free of charge and (b) agreement from local leadership, which is usually granted on the basis of knowing the theory of RC and being able to communicate it well. It _is_ true that RC has a body of accepted literature as in Dianetics or Scientology, and that some of this can appear, well, cultlike, and that Jackins enjoyed appearing as a great savant and bringing out a book a year. But there has never, or should not have been, any compulsion on individuals within RC to purchase such items. Sometimes people in RC have perceived pressure from leaders to conform to ways of doing things, for example, particularly around avoiding criticism, which people have found hard to handle. However (and I am both sceptical and critical of some ways of doing things within RC) the organisation is surprisingly un-cultlike. It does not pursue people who have left on an official basis (some individuals form close relationships within RC and there may be a certain amount of misinterpreted chasing going on judging from web reports), it does not charge high fees (introductory classes are done on a sliding scale and are usually cheap compared to similar activities elsewhere in society), it does not make ongoing financial charges and whilst there are plentiful workshops for moderate daily charges available, there is not, or should not be, pressure placed on people to attend them. (sometimes "invitations" to attend such events get misinterpreted).

Overall I would say RC is at a point where it is like a "succesful revision" of Dianetics that has "almost" but not quite become mainstream. There were probably some good ideas hidden in the middle of LRH's collected lies, he wouldn't have had such an impact if there weren't. I would therefore suggest that RC is not part of the Scientology arena for Wikipedia categorisation purposes, even if it emerges (to some extent) from the same watering hole. Mark. MarkThomas 12:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: "auditor training" courses: I was referring to RC book(lets) and other texts (of which there are many) that *can* be purchased. While there is quite a bit by some measures, RC "texts for training, for monetary exchange" pales in comparison (IMNO) to the materials purchasable from Scientology... as one person on the project often notes, we're talking about yards and yards of shelf space for the printed Scientology texts alone, and that doesn't start to count audio-tapes, videos, etc. Ronabop 13:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Mark! Good to see you've created a username! I've been doing some research, and it seems to me that there's a rather important question about which we don't have enough information. In 1957 a Scientology representative wrote to the FBI, claiming that Jackins was "purporting himself to be a Dianetics Auditor and representing himself as someone connected knowing the Science and doing this work"[8]. Of course, what Scientology believes is not necessarily what's true (and we've seen that we can't even assume that what Scientology claims to believe is what they actually believe.) But if Jackins was in fact practicing Dianetics at that time, unaffiliated with the organization, that might make him, as suggested here, one of the major figures of the early Free Zone. Unfortunately, it's hard to get any sort of reliable data on just what the series of events was back then -- whether Jackins split with Dianetics before splitting with Hubbard or after. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the research Antaeus. I have seen the alleged letter to the FBI from LRH before and referenced it above and also in my editings of the HJ page. I'm not sure that this in itself changes my line of argument - as you know, I am not saying that Jackins was not involved in Dianetics at that time. Indeed it is clear that he was and that he was head of LRH's then Dianetics organisation in the NW USA. There is however a question mark over when exactly he started calling it co-counselling or RC - he himself was always rather vague on that, both in private conversation and publicly, at least with people with whom I have had contact - and also over how much RC follows on and is related to Dianetics. Perhaps this was deliberate. Jackins was the sort of man who, once you had seen him in action, you would conclude did little or nothing by chance.

Therefore my assumption is that until "some point" in the "mid 50s" as he usually put it he identified as a teacher of Dianetics. Some time after this he formed the idea that LRH was in HJ's words (in a private email to an RC'er in the late 90s) "a rogue, a liar and a charlatan" and dropped his connection with Dianetics. He was also a committed Marxist and someone who I shall call Clarence X, who lived at the time in Portland, Oregon and at the time knew Jackins recalled to me (private conversation in 1999) that at that time (mid-to-late-50s) Jackins was trying to combine Marxism and Dianetics. So I think that when LRH wrote that typically crackpot letter to the FBI (who thought him insane, see my referenced document above), Jackins had actually split and was no longer teaching Dianetics - LRH added this bit I think to make it look to the FBI (then eager during anti-communist fever) like he was a member of his legitimate and large organisation (hence all those pompous names on the letterhead) humbly seeking the help of the authorities as a good all-American to suppress this dangerous agitator. Note the blame for the union troubles - an ongoing difficulty in Seattle!

Probably this didn't work as it was already post his HUAC testimony. More interesting (to me) is your second reference, which I have also seen before - the part about being "under the GO radar" and "squirrel". I'm not sure how this operated, given that LRH was obviously doing his damndest to suppress HJ in '57. Maybe Jackins for the first fifteen years or so of his independence from LRH was sufficiently low profile not to attract Scieno attention bigtime; maybe HJ had something serious on him; maybe maybe maybe. It is of course very difficult at this remove in history to judge. And that is really my point. It was a long time ago. Since then, Jackins evolved (not just in my view) RC fundamentally away from Dianetics origins. In modern RC there is almost nothing in common and modern RC'ers would not see themselves as part of a cult. It is true, and this is an issue for me and others, that in this sense the RC leadership, and HJ himself, have effectively misled or at least "whitewashed" their origins to the average RC'er, because they didn't talk about their origins. But then again, if you'd started out, as others did, gulled by LRH (who like Jackins but in a different, more cunning way, was a very clever man), and then discovered he himself was total fake - wouldn't you have wanted to hide that, if you felt there was something good in his ideas that could be developed?

In summary, I don't really have a huge problem with Free Zone categorisation, if this applies to pre-Scientology disenchanted ex-buddies of LRH, but I do still think that it misleads about RC as it stands now, which really has nothing to do with either. I would of course as you know have strong objections to a Scientology categorisation as I feel this is a simplification and a misdirection. As for other potential categorisations, I'm still exploring the endless category lists! Enjoying this dialogue. Mark. London, England. MarkThomas 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Another new piece of evidence I found recently; the court papers of HJ's appeal against the HUAC indictment of him, which took place in the Ninth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals on March 8 1956. Following some changes on the jurisearch website, this is now only available from the Google cached version. Jackins states before the court that he works as a "personal counselor" "helping people with emotional difficulties". Later in the document he describes his work in more detail, in language very like, yet slightly different to, Dianetics, which does not get a mention. I find it unlikely Jackins would have risked untruths at the appeal so to my mind this does show a clear split had developed in his mind between Dianetics and himself by that date. So the "area of difficulty" in the question "was Jackins ever a Scientologist?" lies between 1954 and 56. During this time, at some point, Jackins moved away from LRH and started to re-define himself. But at some point he may also for a while have been practising Scientology as that was when LRH re-packaged it thus. Perhaps not for long though and all rather lost now in the mists of cultic time. MarkThomas 08:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Good research and good analysis, Mark. I think we're getting closer to resolution on this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've had time to do some more searching on this, and this is the way it looks to me right now:
  • Jackins was indeed involved in Dianetics during the 1950s. However, his formal connection with Hubbard ended within just a few years.
  • Some people out there seem to think that Jackins' RC is so close to Dianetics as to be a derivative of it. However, I don't find any reputable source for it, and I don't find evidence that it's a particularly widespread belief.
  • Some people out there believe that even after Jackins separated from Hubbard he was still practicing Dianetics or a close derivative. Again, I don't find any reputable source for it, and I don't find evidence that it's a particularly widespread belief.
I'm going to ask at Talk:Free Zone (Scientology) to be thorough, but barring more, better evidence showing up, I think it would be reasonable to remove Jackins from Category:Free Zone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of people attest that Dianetics is helpful to them. Perhaps millions, but in any event, a lot of people. And these are not one time only events, but happening in quantity every day and have been happening in quantity for many years. But rather than the thousands of attestations of how helpful Dianetics and Scientology are today and in the 1950s, editors consider it NPOV to seek out poorly known about, poorly published information of a negative nature? LOL. Terryeo 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radical Improvement

Jargon. There are many terms and phrases that reoccur within Scientology (e.g. "get ethics in on the planet"), that are meaningless to most readers. The goal of Wiki, and good writing, is clarity; as much for Scientology as art criticism or molecular biology. Avoid jargon, catch phases, indeed cliches, whenever possible. Jargon specific to Scientology, which includes proper nouns (e.g. Sea Org, Rehabilitation Project Force) or nouns formalized within Scientology (e.g "Tech") should be linked, perhaps in appropriate cases to Wiki Dictionary as jargon.

I just wanted to give me props to the boys here at this project. The mere depth provided by these scientology articles are a fairly major improvement from earlier on. Keep up the good work! --Depakote 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but unfortunately it's not coming easily, as we're facing some very aggressive POV-pushing on some of these articles (see especially Talk:Dianetics). Feel free to lend a hand! -- ChrisO 02:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Boys and girls, actually. ;-). Now that we have more voices, and more of a variety of POV editors (as everyone has their own POV), we're navigating rough waters and finding neutral and extreme language, neutral and extreme sources, and slowly managing to fold in everything together. It's not easy, but it's quite rewarding, and the articles are growing quite nicely, if at times, with some contention. Anyways, thanks for the props! Ronabop 13:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Light editing contention, free flowing fads of the moment. Xenu as a belief. You people tickle me. There is more information extant but all is not well in Dodge either. lolTerryeo 09:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It becomes pretty clear what is going on when An editor approaches ChrisO and asks him if he thinks "help" (against me) should be drawn from alt.religion.scientology. It becomes pretty clear just how hard editors are working toward a NPOV. Pretty clear :) Terryeo 03:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New category "Dead Scientologists"

I'm .... rather bemused by this category. Why is it useful in a way that the separate categories of Category:Dead people and Category:Scientologists are not? I've added it to the public watchlist, but I don't think it's a good idea, frankly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I want to say, I understand all of the editors here almost always edit in the best possible NPOV way they are capable of. My first months were spent convincing people that I was not a doctrinaire (a person who can tolerate no other point of view than his own doctrine). I do want you all to understand that you are not actually presenting the information which comprises these subjects. You are presenting information about them. I don't doubt that you are doing what you feel is right. But I do want you all to understand that you are not presenting the information which comprises them. Terryeo 21:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I want you to understand that you're not fooling anyone. You can't make up for months and months in which you do almost nothing on talk pages except accuse other editors of deliberate wrongdoing with an insincere last-minute pretense that you're finally willing to assume good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I see. Nonetheless, I am convinced that you are doing the best you can with what you have, with your personal understanding of the subjects :) Well, that's what I am doing too.Terryeo 03:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"You are not actually presenting the information which comprises these subjects. You are presenting information about them." Is this a criticism, Terryeo? It seems to me that the premise of the encyclopedia is to offer writing about subjects, in a manner that is accessible to readers who have little prior familiarity with the subjects, from a disinterested point of view, that is, a distanced, "outside" point of view. It would be totally inappropriate for us to uncritically re-present the indoctrination materials of Scientology, or of most any subject that involves persuading people to a particular point of view: Evangelical Protestantism, Laizzez-faire capitalism, the Green party, whatever. Do you disagree? BTfromLA 16:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Scientology WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental articles are: Dianetics, Scientology and the Church of Scientology. Terryeo 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Gee, I can't imagine why Terryeo would have forgotten Scientology controversy... -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Then your task, Feldspar, should you choose to accept it, is to do as I did. Go to the appropriate page and place your statement. If I can do it, would there be a reason you could not do it? Further, to copy your style; "Gee, I can't imagine why Feldspar did not reply earlier." Terryeo 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot for these, I will add them into the table soon as Top-Importance. Sorry I took a while to respond, our new semester began shortly after I posted...! I'll enter your FAs like Xenu into the table too with lower importance levels, just for the record. Many thanks, Walkerma 16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
As a point of information which you may or may not choose to consider, Walkerma, neither the Church nor any member in good standing with the Church of Scientology makes any statement whatsoever about "Xenu". That article has no primary source of information for it and has only rumor, stolen documents (which might or might not be accurate) and other such drivel as sources of information. There are, perhaps, 2 other Wikipedia articles in the series which are likewise so poorly documented as to hardly be worthy of consideration in a reliable study. Please keep in mind, Wikipedia is always being improved. Terryeo 16:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo says "nor any member in good standing with the Church". Strictly speaking, this is false. The members that leaked the Xenu story were in good standing with the church. It is because they leaked this information that they lost their good standing. Yandman 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts in Light of Terryeo's Complaints About Xenu

Sorry for thinking out loud, but I took a look at the Xenu article in light of Terryeo's complaints, and it gave me a bunch more thoughts about Terryeo's criticisms of the scientology project in general.

  1. Some of Terryeo's complaints are, IMHO, valid, and, if addressed, would improve the scientology articles.
    1. In particular, the scientology pages don't do the best job of representing the Scientology point of view in a non-dismissive way,(See "Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy"), and at least some of the scientology pages rely heavily on self-published websites with strong anti-COS points of view.
    2. I appreciate that the editors here have worked hard on the articles, some of which are excellent, and that (1) it's hard to represent the COS viewpoint neutrally because the COS tends not to make public statements regarding Xenu, patter drills, or whatever, and (2) a lot of the most interesting information is on websites.
  2. On the other hand, IMHO, many of Terryeo's complaints are at least overblown, and some are completely off base.
    1. In particular, Xenu was a featured article in February 05, and it's considerably better today than it was then, IMHO. The article appears to be well sourced, and finding additional sources regarding Xenu mythology is trivially easy.
    2. At most, the article could be improved by a slightly more balanced tone regarding the COS position on Xenu. As Terryeo says, it's true that the sources have cobbled together Xenu mythology from a combination of alleged COS leaks and LRH science fiction, so we can't know all of the details. Still, the article does say this, so at most, it suffers from a slight excess of tone.
  3. I understand that Terryeo has a strong POV, and that he's basically a single purpose account, and that if he violates his ban a couple more times, he's probably gone. Still, it's a shame that there isn't any way to harness the debate between Terryeo and the other editors to polish up all the articles. It would be helpful to have someone like him to point out when the COS viewpoint wasn't being represented, or when he felt that a source was unreliable, and then let the other editors consider, and maybe remedy the problem, or the part of the problem they believe exists.

Just thinking out loud, TheronJ 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The abundance of critical coverage of Scientology isn't a problem. WP:NPOV actually requires it. We're not supposed to represent some abstract truth. We're supposed to give coverage representative of verifiable, reliable sources. These sources are overwhemlingly in favor of criticizing Scientology. Little exists beyond Scientology's primary sources to support Scientology's assertions. --Davidstrauss 20:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
David is completely right, there is lots and lots of critical coverage about Scientology and Dianetics. Almost all of it falls below wikipedia's standards, however. For example, the hundreds of personal essays and thousands of newsgroup postings by selected Wikipedia members all fall below wikipedia standards. Tsk, its unfortunate, but there you have it. However, should any of those fine editors become published by, say, The New York Times or even a small town newspaper then their fine essay style could be quoted right here in downtown Wikipedialand ! Terryeo 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
You see, Terry, this kind of thing is why I think the "remove personal attacks" theory is a terrible idea. (1) The context should be clear that the title was related to the text and not a personal attack; (2) I was just about the only person here willing to listen to your side, so what was the chances I was making a personal attack, and (3) now my feelings are hurt. If you think I've made a personal attack in the future, I'd appreciated it if you'd either ask me to remove it or report me and see if the admins want to step in. TheronJ 01:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
ok. I could have been more diplomatic and restated the thing differently. Terryeo 11:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources

First, let me state right off that I know next to nothing about Scientology (and what little I know makes me think it is a buch of hooey)... I have come here because of a complaint lodged by User:Terryeo on the talk pages at WP:RS, and I do know something about what makes a source reliable. I understand that there is bad history between Terryeo and several editors to these pages, with accusations of POV violations flying back and forth. I really don't care about all that. My concern is for consistencey in implimenting the guidelines and rules that the Wikipedia Community has agreed upon. Terryeo's complaint is that many of the references on the various Scientology articles violate WP:RS... in particular that personal websites and Blogs are being used as secondary sources, and PDFs of court documents are being linked to through site that do not meet the standards for reliablility. I have taken a look at several of your articles, and I do have to agree that Terryeo has a valid point. Many of your citations and references are indeed counter to the conventions of WP:RS. I ask that you (on both sides of this issue) put aside your animosity to particular editors... and your various POVs towards scientology... and look to see if your citations really do meet WP:RS. Thank you Blueboar 23:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with this, and I've been doing what I can to ensure that articles are properly and reliably cited (as in the recent rewrite I did of Scientology: A History of Man, for instance, or the earlier rewrite of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health). The problem is, I think, threefold. First, there are simply too few editors involved to make much progress; there are a lot of articles in this Wikiproject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/publicwatchlist) and virtually all of them need major improvements. Second, some of the active editors are pushing a very liberal approach to WP:RS while Terryeo is pushing an ultra-strict approach ("the sky is blue" [citation needed] ). Third, relations between the two sides are very poor - some of the other editors evidently believe that Terryeo is just a shill for the CoS line, while Terryeo hasn't helped his case by playing transparent political games on policy pages.
We need to get more (neutral) people involved, so that the articles can be written without the pro- or anti- biases dominating. Terryeo has indeed highlighted some problems with the articles, but he needs to engage with the Wikipedia community through dispute resolution processes rather than playing politics or alienating people with innuendo and specious claims. And everyone needs to focus on finding reliable and verifiable sources. -- ChrisO 01:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
My motivation is very very simple. There is a falsehood in an article. It is an outright lie. I am trying to get it removed. It is not a surprise the lie originates on a personal website. I also understand that no editor who is not educated in the area understands the lie. I don't expect anyone to consider it a lie. What I expect is that editors follow WP:V and implement WP:RS. Then, lies of this nature that would require editor education to understand will not be present in Wikipedia articles. My motivation is simple. Terryeo 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Addendum to my comments above ... both ChrisO and Terryeo have agreed to let me walk through the articles with them, and to comment on which citations I think are in violation of WP:RS and which are fine. Before we begin, I am not an admin, so any comments I make are just my oppinion. Please don't yell at me if I reject something that you feel is vital to the article. I will try to be neutral and fair to all parties. What you do with my comments is up to you. Also, Please don't start yelling at me about POV... I am looking purely at WP:RS... I don't care who has what POV.
Now... on which article shall we begin? Blueboar 01:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Addendum to the Addendum... just leave me a message here (I have put this page on my watch list). It is late where I am and this is not going to be solved overnight... I will start in the morning. Blueboar 01:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Begin on Scientology_as_a_business. Because it is in a mediation process here which revovles around a particular citation to Xenu.net as used in the article, That specific one has a table of information. Some of it is photographed from a Church publication and stored on Xenu.net, some of it is Xenu.net's original research, presented as if it were the Church's say so. I'm speaking of the large chart in the article. I may as well mention, ChrisO's evaluation of my efforts toward good articles isn't very helpful, especially descriptions like "sniping" and "specious claims" because if I don't say something, ChrisO is going to take it as permission to continue to fire off such phrase about me.
OK, I will start there in the morning. Can I ask you both to stop trying to convince me that the other is a nasty person who I should not trust? I really don't care. I am looking at the cites, not at the comments you make about each other. Thanks. Blueboar 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, here's a prior discussion from the WP:RS talk page, regarding the Andre Tabayoyon affidavit (quoted at Scientology#Scientology and celebrities, currently also footnote 31 of that page): Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive4#Affidavits. The point I mention this here: sometimes it is very easy to supplant a primary source by a secondary source: in less than no time I found four printed secondary sources (with excerpts consultable at google books) that could replace the web-derived version of this Tabayoyon affidavit. At least one of these replacement candidates was written by academics. Just takes the time to look for them. And to be willing to cooperate (I seem to remember that Terryeo lost interest/changed subject once the replacement candidates had been pointed out). --Francis Schonken 07:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

When a piece of information is published by a reliable source, it is then includeable within Wikipedia. Even if I know a particular piece of information to be an utter falsehood, I still have no grounds for objecting to a particular piece of information which has been so published. Well, with the possible exception that it be presented alongside primary source, toward a neutral point of view. Terryeo 22:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My comments on Scientology_as_a_business... First, I tend to take a hard line on convenience links... the problem with convinience links is that they often point to an unreliable source. PDFs can be altared, and there is no way to know if the owner of a personal site has altered the document in some way (I am not saying this is the case here... only that it could happen) I feel that WP:RS make it clear that ANY link has to be to a reliable source. In general, it is better to cite to the original book or doucment directly. This is the case with citations numbers 4 and 5. They are convinience links that go to unreliable personal sites. Both books are available at Amazon, so are probably also available at a public library. I do not think you need to change what the article says, but you should cite directly to the books (and not have a convenience link).
Now we get to citations number 6 and 7 ... the chart. The problem here is that the chart is a combination of information pulled from two sources. One of which is reliable and one of which is unreliable. I agree with Terryeo that clambake is a personal page... an excellent personal page, but a personal page none the less... it says so right at the bottom of the home page. This that means you can not use it as a source. However, it does look as if clambake pulls it's financial information from a Scientology pamphlet. The pamphlet itself might be citable, but not as linked to clambake.
OK... that is my initial response... you may now make reply comments (but please restrict them to the subject of the reliablility of citations... ie why you think my view may be incorrect.) Blueboar 12:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Blueboar, but sorry, I want to first address your POV (my interest in Scientology is comparable to yours): your POV is that all convenience links should be banned. My POV is that preferably for every reference the most reliable of the "high convenience" links is given, and also the most convenient of the "high reliability" sources. That means two references if the most reliable doesn't equal the most convenient. Sometimes the two get folded in one another, for instance, if you link to a book that is also available at google books or Gutenberg (but don't forget to make the weblink then too).

Now, I don't think that either you or I should experiment with our respective POVs regarding convenience links in the Scientology articles. Especially as there is prior history. Terryeo was forbidden to remove any reference from any Scientology-related article, while the ArbCom that made that decision was very well aware that many of these links were exclusively convenience links. To be correct: Terryeo was forbidden to do any edit whatsoever on whatever Scientology-related article. So, I'd pray you to get a good grasp of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Removal of references for POV reasons and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo before POV-pushing on the "convenience links" issue. --Francis Schonken 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I would say you are over stating my oppinion on Convenience Links... I don't think they should all be banned. I do think that they should point to reliable sites. I realize that this will severely limit the number of convenience links that can be used, but I have had some very bad experiences links to documents hosted on unreliable sites (for example, where the host of the convenience link did not include the entire original document when copying it on his site so that the context was lost, or where material was added that changed the meaning from what it was in the original.) I am very warry of citations to the internet in general, and on controvercial subjects doubly so. On controvercial subjects it is vital that any convenience link be a correct copy of the original document, and the only way I can see to guarentee that is to insist that the host site be as reliable as the original document (or more so). Blueboar 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that an opinion on a meta issue like "convience links" is a POV as that term is used on Wikipedia. (E.g., WP:NPOV). There's no obligation for anyone to try to present both opinions, for example -- instead, the obligation is to try to reach consensus within the boundaries of the existing policies and subject to guidance from the guidelines.
That said, I generally agree with Francis that convenience links should be ok, if and only if: (1) there is a clear citation to a source that does, in fact, meet WP:V, and (2) the "convenience cite" is then offered clearly only as a convienience.
As to the history with Terryeo, I would prefer to leave his motives out of the discussion. He may well be a ruthless pro-Scientology POV pusher, and one or more of the current editors might be a ruthless anti-Scientology POV pusher, but that hopefully doens't prevent us all from working on the encyclopedia. TheronJ 14:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
TheronJ, while the original may meet the standards of WP:V and WP:RS... can you always be sure that a copy hosted on a convenience link is identical to the original, with nothing removed or added? If the host site is a reliable source, then there is a high likelyhood that this is the case ... if not, I don't think you can rely on it. The only other way would be to do a side by side copy check against the original. In which case, why not just cite the original and not bother with the link? Blueboar 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More comments on Scientology as a business

A bunch of comments, in no particular order.

  1. If, as Francis states, it is possible to replace the cites to Xenu.net with cites to authorities that more clearly meet WP:V and WP:RS, that is a good thing. Terryeo's motives probably aren't relevant -- if he points out an area where the encyclopedia should be improved, and it's possible to improve it, that's great.
  2. As a general matter, I'm more generous to "convenience cites" than Blueboar, and wouldn't have an objection to a convenience cite as long as the citation also has a citation, in proper WP:CITE form, to a source that meets WP:V standards.
  3. The chart on Scientology as a business is suboptimal. It cites to two sources, Xenu.net and the American Saint Hill Organization, Church of Scientology. However, it's very difficult to determine which portions of the chart are sourced by which of the two citations (or both), and there's no explanation of what ASHO is or whether its fees are representative of all Scientology fees.
  4. Generally, I don't think Xenu.net documents meet WP:V, at least not without a citation to a verifiable version of the document, and a clear note that Xenu is offered for convenience. Xenu is clearly self-published, and there's no reason to think that it meets one of the exceptions to the WP:V rule forbidding the use of self-published sources

Thanks, TheronJ 13:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

While we may disagree on the reliability of using convinience links in general... I agree with you on the rest of this. The chart has issues beyond just WP:RS (WP:NOR for one)... and Xenu is clearly self-published. Blueboar 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shall we continue?

I have given my opinion on the cites at Scientology as a Business... take 'em or leave 'em. This should give you a clear idea of how I will opine on other cites. I told you going in that I was a "strict constructionist" on reliability. On the other hand, I can be convinced to make exceptions in specific cases. So... will my comments be helpful if we look at some of the other Scientology related articles? If so... what's next? Or am I just waisting everyone's time? Blueboar 22:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you consider viewing Patter drill next? In particular cites 2, 4, 5, and 6 point to borderline websites and 4,5,and 6 to personal websites. Terryeo 23:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than clutter up the project page, should we move this discussion to the Patter Drill page? I've posted my comments there. TheronJ 13:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

TheronJ's comments on the talk page of Patter Drill sums up my reaction perfectly... he is doing my job for me! (I have agreed with his comments on that talk page) Next? Blueboar 17:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a biggy, may I suggest Scientology ? Several days ago I created a brief analysis of the references here. Several are personal websites with personal opinion. Several are in languages other than English. One or two are hand typed duplications of court documents (apparently). And I want to state that I'm very pleased both of you agree. Very. Terryeo 11:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Blueboar, it's all yours - I may chime in later.  ;) TheronJ 13:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look this weekend. Blueboar 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: What's the end result?

I thought it might help to touch base and see what people would like to see happen as a result of Blueboar and me poking around the scientology pages.

  1. If I can oversimplify, Blueboar and I reviewed couple pages, Scientology as a business and Patter drill and concluded that:
    1. We generally agree that Terryeo has raised some valid complaints about the citations used on those pages, and that many, probably a majority, of the citations used do not meet WP:V or WP:RS.
    2. Neither Blueboar or myself appears inclined to edit the pages to remove or fix the offending citations, and Terryeo is barred from doing so.
    3. If I understand ChrisO and Francis Shonken correctly, they also agree that at least some of Terryeo's complaints have some basis, although they also think that some of his complaints go too far.
  2. So Terry, Chris, Francis, (and anyone else) what would you like to see happen next? I can imagine a few possibilities.
    1. If the current review is helpful, Blueboar and I can keep doing it.
    2. If the current review isn't helpful, we could quit.
    3. The current editors could agree to try to correct some of the concerns identified to date.
    4. ChrisO mentioned in Terryeo's request for mediation that he would prefer RFCs to bring in more outside opinion. If Blueboar and I aren't enough of a sample size, would you guys prefer to see some RFCs? If so, would you like to draft it collectively or would you prefer for someone just to post it.

Thanks, TheronJ 13:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a mention of the mediation, a parallel effort toward good article quality. The work the two of you have done exemplify there is a lack implementation of WP:RS. I am in agreement with the statements above. ChrisO has suggested a Request for Comment be initiated. The difficulty as I see it revolves around poor sources of information. Several editors refuse to comply with WP:RS (and by implication it's parent, WP:V. I would state the problem to be that the editors most active in the articles uniformly hold the same idea about the issue. Rather than attempt to list several editors by name who freely cite newsgroups, personal websites and hand typed reproductions of court documents, I would hope we can all talk about the issue. The only possible resolution is editor agreement, banning ( ? who me ? ), or some kind of enforcement. Agreement comes about if understanding can be achieved. I would hope we can talk and understand each other. Terryeo 02:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote Terryeo "The work the two of you have done exemplify there is a lack implementation of WP:RS." Clearly, Terryeo is attempting to Enforce a Guideline. Only a policy is enforceable. I appears to me that Terryeo is operating here in Bad Faith. Terryeo has a false notion of agreement. In truth, it comes about when reality is shared. Many of the editors here have rejected the cofs "reality" which Terryeo has repeatedly attempted to enforce in wikipedia, resulting in his ban from editing scientology-related articles. The problem here is Terryeo's POV agenda.--Fahrenheit451 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you said something, F. Glad you said something. Would you be willing to apologize for accusing me of "bad faith?" Terryeo 20:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Would Terryeo be willing to apologize for chronically attempting to get Reliable Source enforced as if it were a policy?--Fahrenheit451 20:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you ask me ? Terryeo 23:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, a couple comments:

  1. What do you think about my initial questions? Is there anything you would like to see happen other than Terryeo going away?
  2. Are you agreeing that the scientology sources don't meet WP:RS?
  3. If so, do you think they meet WP:V?

Thanks, TheronJ 01:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal websites

In recent days with a little searching I have found an edit by User:ChrisO which cites his own message which he placed on a newsgroup. And, likewise, one by User:Raymond Hill. It took a few hours of searching. But what I am trying to say is that ALL of that kind of self-interest would not be present in the articles if editors simply followed policy. Newsgroups are obviously not reliable sources of information. They aren't actually attributable. An editor could post a newsgroup message, "Hubbard said the moon is made of green cheese in Executive Directive 04" and then go to his personal website and archive the newsgroup, come here to Wikipedia and quote Hubbard, cite his manufactured quotation and that has actually happened (all in good faith of course). But all of that self interest can not creep in if we simply follow WP:V. As obvious as these examples are, Personal Websites are too small a step up the reliability ladder. They too can be manipulated, essays created on them and then cited here in Wikipedia. Obviously. Terryeo 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're not in favour of the use of sites like "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" (covered here Talk:Scientology and the legal system#Resources, fair and balanced)? A personal website, claiming to be neutral, but with almost all the Scientology articles authored or co-authored by Al Buttnor, Director of Special Affairs, Church of Scientology Toronto. (But no mention of that on the site.) Misleading references too. As well, the site attempts to block the use of the Wayback Machine archive to compare the pages with previous versions. AndroidCat 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I am, as I have stated many times, in favor of implementing Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia guidelines. Show me 5 Scientology articles which don't cite a personal website, can you? I would be ALL FOR removing every cite to a personal website, if that were Wikipedia policy. Don't you find it slightly amusing that one personal website is offensive to you, but Xenu.net, Clambake.org and a dozen other personal websites are not offensive to you, 'Cat ? Terryeo 16:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, implementing Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia guidelines... I must have missed the part where abiding by bans imposed by the Arbitration Committees became an optional practice... -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not comment appropriate to this discussion heading? Our Wikipedia would be more widely read if only Policy and Guidelines were followed in the Scientology series of articles. That's what this min-Rfc is about. Because I often point out deviations from the guideline, especially WP:RS and direct conflicts with WP:NOR and what happens? Opposition might not be the right term, but you certainly must have the idea, huh ? Terryeo 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a joke?

After seeing this Wikiproject I no longer have faith in the neutrality and the factual accuracy in any Scientology page. Has any editor seen that virtually all "participants" in this Wikiproject have a stated, anti-Scientology pov? Wow. Now I understand why Scientology Public Relations exists. Republitarian 02:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a good deal of truth to that, I'm afraid. It is a matter of understanding Wikipedia's streets and byways I guess. Terryeo 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Kind of you to drop in, Republitarian, although I might recommend that you brush up a bit on Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which you just violated rather severely. Did you in fact have any comment to make about the content, or were you under the impression that it was fine for you to not only comment on the contributors but make a sweeping and negative accusation against them? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
No mention of any individual editor was either stated nor implied by User:Republitarian's post. No personal attack exists. Terryeo 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see -- it's okay to make personal attacks as long as it's against several people at once, instead of singling out editors individually? Is that your understanding? Perhaps you should share that with the Arbitration Committee. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Quite to the contrary. "Personal Attack" (which you accuse the user of), User:Antaeus Feldspar requires that a person be pointed to. Per WP:NPA, certain other salient features would be present. None of them are. I would welcome communication with the Arbitration Committee, did you have a page in mind ? Terryeo 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Having a particular POV does not automatically disqualify one from writing a NPOV article. WP:NPOV requires that you write neutrally, not that you be neutral. -- ChrisO 13:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Toward writing in complience with WP:NPOV, keep in mind that articles are not so much created out of thin air, but collect together previously published information by reliable sources (WP:V). Good guidance for such sources of information can be found at WP:RS but do not include personal websites (for reasons stated there), nor archived newsgroups such as this edit, where User:ChrisO quotes his own, newsgroup posted words, finds them archived on a personal website and then cites them into the Scientology article on 28 June, 2005Terryeo 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Who's surprised that the edit which Terryeo links to absolutely fails to match Terryeo's accusatory description? Raise your hand if you're surprised that Terryeo made an accusation, and linked to an edit as if that edit actually supported his accusation, but that it didn't in fact back up his words. ... any time, now. Go ahead. Raise your hand if you're surprised. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Count up from the bottom, the ninth (9th) paragraph you come to has at its end, the link to the archived newsgroup on a personal website which is a message from Chris Owen. Perhaps the quantity of information created by administrator User:ChrisO presents a lot to sort through. Terryeo 03:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
My hand will not be raised. At first, I thought Terryeo had found his "smoking gun." It does appear that ChrisO did link to an article he authored, correct? Not content with facts, though, Terryeo charges that ChrisO "quotes his own, newsgroup posted words," which is patently false--the reference is clearly and only to Hubbard's written words, which are quoted in the Chris Owen article. And Terryeo doesn't object to anything that actually bears on the quality of the article--he offers no concern about the veracity of the Hubbard quote in question. Still, it wouldn't hurt to replace the link, so as to eliminate any hint of impropriety and to focus more exactly on the cited material. Terryeo won't be satisfied, but the relevant memo is reproduced, unedited and without external commentary, at [9]. BTfromLA 04:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
User:ChrisO has stated that he is Chris Owen in various places. When he posts in newsgroups (many postings), creates his anti-Scientology website (Anti-Narconon), writes a 100+ articles on Xenu, appears at the personal "Solitary Trees" website in many essays, works with David T to produce anti-Scientology essays and edits here on Wikipedia, well, a person should expect a tiny bit of his cross-hatting work to show up somewhere. But I'll agree, his edits rarely cite his own works. However, his work appears cited frequently enough because he has posted so much anti-Scientology on so many personal websites. Terryeo 12:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that my continual comments about the quality of the sources of information comprising Wikipedia articles are universially disregarded in preference to defence of the information contained within such citations. The newsgroup should not be quoted from. WP:RS spells out that if the newsgroup were presented in an article by the New York Times, it could not be quoted from though the Times article could be quoted, including the portion of it which contained the newsgroup posting. Personal websites fall below Wikipedic standards. Newgroups fall below Wikipedic standards. I have stated, User:ChrisO (who is an administrator and an experienced editor) cites newsgroups, in this instance he created an message on a newsgroup, found an archived copy of his created message and cites it into an article. OBVIOUSLY this action is directly against WP:RS. Yet BTfromLA finds the only element worth commenting on is the information within the citation, which BTfromLA is defending? Good gosh people, will you understand, this is not an issue about the information contained within, this is an issue about the source of information. Terryeo 04:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A "smoking gun" or a dozen "smoking guns" is not what I seek here. I seek editor complience with established policy and guideline. Alternatively, editors who are of strong opinion that WP:RS and WP:V are mis-written or should have an exception stated about Scientology (or other subjects) should go to the appropriate policy or guideline page and create a concensus of editors who then will support their continual cites to personal websites and newsgroups. As the situation stands, it is silly ! The broad consensus of editors support WP:RS while a tiny handful of Wikipedia anti-Scientology editors ignore WP:RS. Terryeo 04:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you need to focus your complaints and limit your objections to things that are both true and truly problematic if you want editors to respond favorably. If my quick reading of ChrisO's edit is correct, you have identified a link that has one real problem and one possible impropriety. You did not mention the real problem at all, and you added some charges that are plainly false--ChrisO did not quote himself. The real problem with that link, I think, is that there is not a clear citation of the memo from which the Hubbard quote is drawn--that, certainly, should be added. The "appearance" issue is the fact that ChrisO linked to something he had written as a way of making a larger part of the Hubbard quote visible. As I suggested above, I think that should be substituted with a "cleaner" convenience link, such as the one I found easily with a google search. About "personal sites," in my view, if the site is not the reference (i.e., it is a convenience link, not a link to the actual reliable source on which the citation is based), if the information is clearly presented, and if there is no reason to suspect that the cited document is distorted or mis-represented, I just don't see the point of getting exercised about it, particularly if more extensively vetted web hosts are not available. I know that my view is not universally held, but neither do I think my view falls outside the mainstream of wikipedia editors. And I'm confident I'm not the only one who wishes your "continual comments about the quality of the sources of information" did reflect some interest in the veracity of "the information contained within such citations," which you seem to find irrelevant to the quality of the articles. BTfromLA 05:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Every editor should work toward implementation of Wikipedia policy and guideline rather than encouraging other editors to ignore them at their personal whim. Terryeo 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
We have a difference of priorities. I think editors should work toward writing readable, concise, informative, factually accurate articles, written, to the extent possible, from a "neutral" point of view. BTfromLA 05:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The original poster of this thread needs to read up on WP:NPOV, which doesn't support the idea of equal coverage of each viewpoint in articles and says nothing about equal representation of each view in Wikiprojects. --Davidstrauss 05:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
As I've tried to spell out, NP:NPOV guides editors to present the most widely published point of view as being the prevelent point of view. In the case of this subject, Scientology, we have something like 40 million published words, millions of sold books, DMSMH as being a best seller, etc. Widely published. Against that we have a few dozen, perhaps a few hundred newpaper articles, a handful of books, etc. Therefore, for this subject (if we exclude personal websites, blogs and newsgroup trashtalk), we have a clear guideline of how to present the subject. Terryeo 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"Trash talk"? "Hey, Hubbard... yo' muddah wears army boots..." BTfromLA 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL! But seriously, the "most widely published point of view" is a red herring and it certainly doesn't mean what Terryeo says it means. What Terryeo is actually saying is "the side with the most published words should prevail". If all of those 40 million published words come from L. Ron Hubbard, that's actually the least widely published point of view - they come from only one source. By comparison there are dozens of books and tens of thousands (check Lexis-Nexis) of articles from hundreds if not thousands of journals and newspapers around the world. We should be presenting articles from a neutral point of view based on all available sources, not on which source has the highest word count. I'll be the first to acknowledge that many of this WikiProject's articles don't meet that ideal, but that doesn't mean that the alternative has to be the sort of slavish kow-towing to the Scientology line that Terryeo seems to want. -- ChrisO 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is not with me. Your red herring argument for an exception to the Scientology Series of articles is with the concensus of editors who establish and maintain WP:RS, and, conceiveably with our founder, Jimbo. "Published" in this sense means "presented to the public" as in "copies of books sold" and while 40 millions of words is vastly less than the number of words sold, the idea, which side has published and put into public hands the larger quantity of reliable information is clearly not on the side of unattributable, hidden-in-solitary-trees, anti-Scientology personal websites. The public speaks by purchasing copies, those purchasing dollars represent votes by the public for the information the public considers valuable. That information is the information which NPOV addresses when it says, The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. Your argument is not with me, I am asserting what policy and guideline say should be asserted. I am stating what I mean. Feel free to notice that I am not stating what you mean, as you do, User:ChrisO Terryeo 09:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, please stop speaking in generalities and altering Chris's communication to worsen it. I don't want anyone thinking that you have suppressive traits. --Fahrenheit451 18:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I have done either of those things. Of course I understand your motivation to protect me from people's thinking and thank you so much for caring enough to state so :) Terryeo 14:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not surprised. I have no interest in protecting you from "people's thinking", thus your alleged understanding of that is your own fabrication.--Fahrenheit451 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I refer to your statement, I don't want anyone thinking that you have suppressive traits. Thank you for your consideration in the matter, have a nice day. Terryeo 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I presume this is the part of the NPOV policy upon which Terryeo bases his theory of "widely published": "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The kinds of sources the policy is seeking are third-parties, with a preference for well-credentialed ones: accredited scholars and journalists for "major" publications; jurists, in issues where courts are involved, would also be a good source of third-party viewpoints. In this context, it is doubtful whether any materials published by Hubbard or the Church of Scientology can be accepted as "a reliable source." Bridge publications provide primary source materials for these articles--quotes from Hubbard or Church officials--but are not a reliable source of how Scientology or its claims are viewed by third parties. Indeed, there is ample evidence that Hubbard and Bridge are distinctly unreliable sources in these matters, prone to publishing false or misleading information. As to Terryeo's emphasis on print runs, sales figures and word counts--at best, those are a few among many factors in assessing how prominent a given point of view is, and I don't think you'll find them singled out as significant in the written wikipedia policies, which clearly emphasize "credible, third-party sources". BTfromLA 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
BTfromLA has raised an issue, it is doubtful whether any materials published by Hubbard or the Church of Scientology can be accepted as "a reliable source." The issue raised is non-sequiter. We need not judge the reliability because in this series of articles the publications are Primary Source information. If they were being used as secondary source information, the issue of reliability would be germane. For example, in an article about crime which has reduced in the region just around the Flag base, if Hubbard's publications were being cited as secondary sources then the issue of reliability could come up. But through these articles Hubbard and the Church are primary sources and the issue of "reliability" doesn't apply except that publications be of good, uniform quality. In regard to BTfromLA's statement, Indeed, there is ample evidence that Hubbard and Bridge are unreliable sources, I completely disagree. But that issue is trivial when using a source of information in an article about itself. Which is the situation throughout the Scientology Series. Instead a very big issue is the secondary source information reliability. If Scientology were actually opposed by many governments and many people, newspapers would be full of the kind of drivel found in personal websites (often cited) and anti-scientology newsgroups (cited too often). But that is not the situations. The Church has actually been helpful to some governments, the Government of Australia changed some of its laws about Psychiatric Institutions as a result of Church investigation into sleep therapy, as one example. Terryeo 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume that User:Terryeo wrote the preceeding entry at 20:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC). Your hypothetical statement about opposition by governments and newspapers has a false conclusion. I point out that there are gradients of opposition, just as there are of support. Someone may oppose say, income tax, but not put up personal websites or newsgroups expounding such views, and just because such views are there does not imply they are, in your words, "drivel". The exposure of deep sleep therapy by cchr is laudable, but the flip side of the coin is that the cofs violates human rights elsewhere through the practice of "fair game", the enforced disconnection policy, the comm ev (essentially a military tribunal), and the SP declare. This has caused the breaking up of families and destruction of businesses. The media has documented a number of instances of this, but by no means, the serious extent of these barbaric practices. This can be remedied by the fact that Reliable Source is a Guideline, it gives editors some latitude which is much needed in many instances, but not always. --Fahrenheit451 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote that, must have used 5 tildes instead of 4 to sign it, have resigned it appropriately. The Church doesn't practice Fair Game and hasn't practiced it for 40 years. The rest of what you state in that area confront Suppressive person technology which can be misunderstood but which I agree with. Of course you are free to cite those rare instances of those difficulties which you say are frequent, are published. Yes, I am willing to state that it is my opinion that the anti-scientology personal websites are drivel. If you would wish to explore my personal opinion by a line by line look through a personal website, I'm willing to do so on my user page. I tried this with BTfromLA, about the time he begin to see how things were going, he quit talking with me, heh. Since you, ChrisO, Wikipediatrix and gawd, who knows, everyone, refuses to understand how WP:RS is to be applied I suppose I'll have to go to that discussion page, do some more work to get statements on the page of how to apply guidelines. They are set in stone within their parameters. No personal websites as secondary sources Period. Terryeo 23:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
So in their appeal of the Gerry Armstrong case, the Church was effectively arguing that they had a "core practice" which should be Constitutionally protected even though they hadn't (at least according to your, um, version of events) practiced it for two decades? -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That is an interesting case. It begin in what, 1968 or something? 1972? And in 1995 (or something) elements of the case were still kicking around in the court system? If the single published document which is the court findings and affidavits are reproduced in a reliable manner, those could be included, obviously. It is the hand type reproductions by unreliable personal websites that don't meet WP:V. There is some arguement that PDF files with time and date information, notary signature, etc. might be good wherever they appear. Terryeo 14:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"It begin [sic] in what, 1968 or something? 1972?" ... wow. Just wow. If you don't know anything about a situation, Terryeo, why do you feel compelled to comment on it anyways? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
First you bring the case up. In good faith, I assume you do so with some idea in mind. In good faith I respond with the little I know about it. In response to my good faith response, you critize me saying "if you don't know anything about a situation" (I know a little) "why do you feel compelled to comment" ? I am not compelled and I'm perfectly willing to leave it alone. You say, "nice day isn't it?" and I say, "sure, its a nice day", "what do you want to discuss about that case?" and you both refuse to talk any more about it and in the works, evaluate that I have a compulsion and don't know anything about the case. <well> Terryeo 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, I brought up the case. You brought up the issue of what year the case started, implying that the year the case started was relevant, and you got the year wrong by about a decade and a half. I "evaluate" that you don't know anything about the case because anyone who did understand the basics of the case would understand why it couldn't have started before L. Ron Hubbard went into hiding; I "evaluate" that you felt compelled to comment on a situation where the "little [you] know about it" was not enough because it's exactly what you did. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I know little about it, but am willing to discuss it. Terryeo 16:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And what you refuse to recognize is that WP:RS is a Guideline, not a policy, Period.--Fahrenheit451 02:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand User:Fahrenheit451, your demonstrated expertise in editing WP:RS (20 edits in 24 hours), your demonstrated expertise on its discussion page (attempted to place the article into an RfC was it?), and the smooth manner in which you got along with all the editors there spell out your familiarity with the guildline. Here is a recent edit on that talk page which addresses your concerns, [10] Terryeo 16:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop the personal attack Terryeo. You are making an accusatory comment in a sarcastic, invective tone.--Fahrenheit451 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The period is that User:ChrisO (and probably others) have many, many reposited newsgroup postings which are archived on personal websites. The one I am pointing to which appears as reference [81] in the Scientology article, this one is User:ChrisO's personal research. It begins, What is the overall goal of Scientology? To "clear the planet", right? Wrong; and goes on from there. Well, that is clearly original research. It appears on a personal website. It is an archived newsgroup posting. It is really no different than the user going to the article and placing his selected quotation. If User:ChrisO did that, his edit would be reverted. instead, Raymond Hill or some other editor (who knows which, it takes time to trace out these horrible bad citations) cites Chris Owen's earlier post on a newsgroup. And then, for reasons no one wishe to explain about, you guys are saying it is valid because there is a newsgroup and a personal website between User:ChrisO and his posting on the newsgroup. It is original research. It doesn't fulfill WP:V. It is just plain wrong. period. Terryeo 07:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, Fahrenheit451, let me make a suggestion. F451, would it address your concerns if Terry started citing primarily to WP:V? Verifiability is a pplicy, and it forbids self-published websites. (It also states that sources must comply with WP:RS, but that's a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened for you and T to deal constructively with each other.) TheronJ 09:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe that could work out. Terryeo 12:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no way that these articles should be more pro-Scientology than anti-Scientology, or vice versa. Scientology is obviously very controvertial - we should present it as completely as possible, using all sources (both pro and anti) that meet Wikipedia requirements. Vpoko 18:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My position has always been this. If an encyclopedia is going to present criticsm about a subject, it should present the subject and THEN present the criticsm. By doing it this way, a reader can understand what is being criticized. The Thetan article kind of does it that way, at least you have some clue what the subject is about before you get convoluted criticsms. Other subjects though, don't do so well. When a lot of criticsm is presented before the reader understands what is being criticized, I believe it prevents a person from understanding the subject at all. He comes away thinking, "oh, that is a subject to criticize" rather than, "oh, that means ....abc.... and its critcisms are ...xyz..." Terryeo 04:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd be comfortable generalizing here. I can see both the benefit of intertwining criticism with the subject matter and keeping it seperate. I guess it depends on the breadth of the topic - when lots of information is presented, it can seem disjointed to read all of the info, then all of the criticism. I guess I'd have to see which leads to a smoother flow. Vpoko 16:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I just like to see the subject presented fairly before the criticism is presented fairly. So if it is a very long article the criticism could follow the subject in the same section. In shorter articles it can be a separate section. Inline criticism is discouraged by wikipedia guidelines because, IMO, it a contentious form of presenting the subject that does not lead to an understanding of both sides. I wonder also about rebuttal. Should a sourced rebuttal follow the criticism, i.e. should the subject be allowed to respond to the criticism? and no, there doesn't have to a re-rebuttal, you just edit the criticism to address the issue in the rebuttal. Which brings up another though, then would you not also want to edit the subject to address the criticism if that can be sourced. I like it; just two parts, subject and criticism and an iterative process, trial by fire, if you like, and we are left with a good representation of the subject and of that criticism that is most likely justified and not merely misrepresentation of the subject. --Justanother 16:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of the (sourced) rebuttal of any (sourced) criticism just being included with the (sourced) presentation of the original subject, but that concept would work whether the criticism was inline or in its own section. It does seem to me that many of the concepts in Scientology are controvertial enough (at least to those who aren't trained in them, if that's your perspective), that I wouldn't want to present them without making it clear that they're claims that have not been accepted by mainstream science. Anyway, it's not a black-and-white argument - maybe criticism should get a sentence or two in the presentation of the subject and then have its own in-detail section. I just don't think you can generalize and create a policy that will work for every topic. Vpoko 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am not proposing a policy. There are some suggestions in WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone that apply. I find most of the controversy here to be of two main sorts; objections to Scn's nature as abusive and/or a cult and the other being presentation of the tenets and practice of Scn as "High Weirdness". I have a lot less objection to the former than to the latter. As regards the former, I have no interest in disputing correctly presented criticism. As for the portrayal of Scn as "all weird, all the time"; that stems almost exclusively from misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Scn, something wikipedia does not need to further. If anything, wikipedia's job is to explain Scn well enough that someone that knows nothing about it can understand a bit of what I, a practicing Scientologist of some 30 years, understand in depth. I find the other approach, the "high weirdness" to be little more than holding Scn up to scorn and continuing an inside joke. It does not contribute to knowledge and understanding and could be summed up a single line, "Lots of people think Scn is really weird". OK, put that line and let's move on with explaining Scn. --Justanother 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's safe to say there are people here who have a personal stake (or at least interest) in presenting Scientology in a certain light - both positively and negatively. But the sides do serve to keep each other honest, and there are enough impartial editors to help when there's an impasse. Personally, I think the current Scientology series on Wikipedia is excellent. Can it be much improved? Yes. But I don't see any huge deficiencies that stand out. Vpoko 19:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
A baker might mix certain ingredients and get a loaf that smells good. A uneducated person, following the same recipe, might mix the same ingredients and get a mess. The baker "loosens" the flour, adds the ingredients together in a series of sequences, mixes or combines them appropriately and the uneducated person might not follow all of those steps. In a parallel manner, Scientology is an exact technology and a series of small steps. Several of the articles do not present the information which the title is about in a manner that allows the subject to be understood. A glaring example is the template which presents Xenu to be some part of Scientology Doctrine. It is not. Yet a group of editors who do not know Scientology insist that it is. There are a number of other examples. Terryeo 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, Terryeo, your being in the cofs and having not done OT III, you may state that. But, there are those who have done OT III or studied the materials and confirm that a person named Xenu is mentioned in those materials. So, you are in no position to make a denial of that. --Fahrenheit451 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I see you are commenting on my personal experience and appear certain that, because of my personal experience in the area of the subject you mention, I should not comment on that subject. But that was not the subject of the comment I made. The subject of the comment I made was in the area of Wikipedia Policy and Guideline. Specifically I referenced to WP:V which states, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, and by that is meant verifiability by a reliable source of information. So, you see, I am not commenting on the subject itself, but commenting on an application of Wikipedia Policy. Please, feel free to talk about the application of Wikipedia Policy. On the other hand, if you wish to discuss my personal experience, well, my user page would be the place for that. Terryeo 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There is published literature that mentions the Xenu personage, so I believe there are reliable sources on that matter. Discussion of that belongs here, not on your user page.--Fahrenheit451 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Vpoko, there are some decent parts and a lot of it represents a good effort. I guess what you might term "a positive light", I consider writing from an understanding of the subject. I do that wherever I edit and I only edit aticles where I feel that my understanding of the subject surpasses the level the article or section is currently sitting at. It is of course a judgement call on my part and time will tell if my judgement finds respect here. Right now a lot of Scn stuff seems to me to be written from the POV of someone trying to be fair with material that really makes little sense to them. I am sure that you see how that might be improved by an intelligent person that it does make sense to; especially one that sees the big picture, how it all hangs together. --Justanother 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that as a Scientologist, you have a unique and very useful perspective to contribute to this article, but we should also remember the reality that there are a lot of published criticisms of Scientology, as well as information obtained through other-than official channels (directly from the CoS). So while you're certainly qualified to give the Scientologist's view on Scientology (as long as it's not Wikipedia:OR), there is also another perception that deserves inclusion. Personally, you don't seem like you're trying to whitewash anything, but we just have to be careful not to get caught in the trap of thinking that only things that officially come from the CoS are valid when speaking about the CoS (or Scientology in general). Vpoko 12:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair game and Xenu

I see so much discussion on these two topics and I want to add my POV and perhaps discover why they seem so contentious.

Fair Game was a policy LRH put out a long time ago that declared that any Scientologist could do whatever they pleased to an SP and not get in trouble with the Church. They could, of course, get in trouble with the law of the land. It was a "hold harmless" policy. To me, and many others I am sure, it seemed to declare "Open Season" on SPs. I, personally, found it distasteful, and would never consider harming another person just because it was allowed. 99.9% of the hundreds of Scientologists I have come to know over the years are EXTREMELY good-hearted people and I imagine they would feel the same way. This is not to say that some people would not take it to heart. But the policy was cancelled, "fair game" was cancelled. All other policies related to SPs remained in force but there is no other similar policy so "Open Season" was closed. I am not saying that the CoS does not take actions against critics that I find reprehensible; counter-picketing, leafleting, blowing up minor foibles and posting them on the internet. But that is not "fair game"; that is just what it is, be it "dead-agenting", "dirty tricks", or whatever. To me, the concept of "fair game" is this "open season on SPs" thing where every public Scientologist gets to take a swing. So I would make note of the fair game policy and that it was cancelled and discuss the harassment of critics separately as simply that. Trying to say that current harassment of critics is "fair game policy" is not accurate.

Xenu, ahhh Xenu. How little we knew thee, Xenu. This one is simpler yet, I think. The CoS does not discuss nor disclose what material is contained on the OT Levels and neither will any Scientologist that does not want to ruin his standing with the Church. That means me, too. But plenty of ex-Scientologists will. So what is the big deal? Xenu has come to represent all that is "weird" about Scientology. OK. The simple truth is that Scientology deals with your history as a spiritual being. LRH talks about the "whole track" many places; prior to 1967, the processes designed to create an OT, then termed a "cleared theta-clear", were not confidential and dealt mainly with whole track goals processing. Ex-Scientologists say that current OT III, Wall of Fire is such and such. Those three lines capture most of it in a nutshell. Then you have the church's efforts to suppress the data. OK, cover that, too. What is there to argue about? --Justanother 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with you. Regarding Fair Game, the gist of our description should be that it was an official policy that was subsequently canceled by the church. If there are verifiable sources saying that it wasn't really canceled, we should make a reference to those as well. It's not our place to take sides as far as who's story we believe. Likewise regarding Xenu. If I recall correctly (and I might not), the Xenu story came out in a court case, which gives us a published, public-record source. If the CoS doesn't acknowledge it as being part of Scientology doctrine, that should be promintently mentioned also. Vpoko 17:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
A Church publishes its doctrine, of course. A Church makes public its doctrine, obviously. Xenu is not part of the Church's doctrine Terryeo 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Dictionary.com: "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government." I don't see anything about being published. --Davidstrauss 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thought or advocated almost always involves publication. Perhaps you can think of an example where a Church's Doctrine is unpublished, unknown, thought only in the dark recesses of the full moon, but that would be rare. Normally, I'm sure you would agree, a Church's doctrine is published for all to view. Terryeo 01:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, wikipedia is not about doctrine, especially CoS doctrine. Wikipedia is about what is. There is such a thing as OT III. The CoS will not describe it in detail. People that have done it and left the church pretty uniformly agree in their descriptions of what it is and they describe it in detail. Therefore wikipedia will use their description. It can be noted that the description is from ex-members. How could it be any other way? What would you have wikipedia do instead? Say there is such a thing as OT III but we can't describe it because the CoS says we shouldn't? Do you really think that position is tenable? It is fine for you and me but the rest of the world is not bound by the rules we are bound by. The "best" thing to do is put it in its proper perspective and continue to describe the rest of Scn to the best of our ability. Continuing to argue an untenable position is not effective use of our time, IMO. BTW, the OT levels are confidential, not published, "doctrine" (if anything in the tech is "doctrine"). --Justanother 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I would have the template present the broadly published point of view, the widely prominent point of view. In the case of the Xenu article (if there must be one), I would have it placed in the Controvery Section of the template. Terryeo 01:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The most broadly published point of view was the one shown on South Park. Is that the one you mean? If you haven't seen South Park (you might want to if you have the sense of humor that allows you to laugh at yourself or at Scientology), it is the same old Xenu story. OK ,you have a good point there. Is that what this is all about? Taking Xenu out of the beliefs and practices section and confining him to the controversy section? OK, I understand your thinking there. Not sure if it will fly but perhaps he needs to be given the proper amount of significance there that he has in actual beliefs and practices; i.e. reportedly a character in one level of the entire Bridge. Then expanded on in the controversy section. --Justanother 01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of this is about that, yes. Simply blowing some cool air of reason into the hot controversy, placing the information in a sensible manner so the reader can benifit. Yes, I think that is what it is about. Terryeo 12:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wait, so are you in favor of removing the Xenu story from Wikipedia because it isn't published doctrine, or just presenting the Xenu story in a different place that it's in now? Vpoko 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

To the left. Vpoko, I will answer since he is agreeing with me and I am here now. He seems to be agreeing with me that, yes, Xenu belongs but I think he would like to see him confined to the Controversy Section (instead of a mountain in the Pyrenees? Sorry, couldn't resist) while I counter that I doubt that would fly with other editors but perhaps they will agree that his treatment is way overblown in the beliefs and practices section since the vast majority of Scientologists know absolutely nothing about him and for those on the OT levels, IF he is there, he is there as simply one incident, albeit an important one, on one OT level. --Justanother 13:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So are you both just talking about the Scientology article (this is the talk page for the whole project so I'm not sure). There, it does seem like the Xenu story gets a lot of play without much mention that the CoS claims it's not part of its doctrine. Let me ask, does the CoS actively deny that it's part of doctrine, or do they neither confirm nor deny it? A sourced denial would add a lot to the article (if it exists). How about the actual Xenu article, is that one OK with everyone? Vpoko 13:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The CoS has not, to my knowledge, denied but on the contrary has engaged in extraordinary effort to suppress. I am talking about the Scn article. Re the Xenu article, I really can't speak to it and don't have much interest in it. I will likely take a shot at rewiting a bit of the Scn article to restore a more realistic perspective. Xenu falls into the controvery section because it is controversial that, assuming what ex-Scientologists say about the OT levels is, for the most part, true (Fishman, of course, being quite the liar and I base this on personal knowledge of some of the stuff he claims in his "book"), controversial that the CoS keeps the "space opera" nature of the OT Levels secret, maintaining them as a sort of "revealed knowledge" that must be presented at the correct time but some would claim that that is disingenuous. I can see it either way but I am not about debate. But the real, to me, controversy and the one worthy of note is the one I mention. Xenu is a sideshow and has come to represent the "weirdness of Scientology". It is one of the internet memes of Scientology and why we get so much vandalism on these pages. As a meme it will get its own article, nothing I can do about that, that is the nature of wikipedia, just like goatse.cx gets its own article, internet meme. --Justanother 13:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
And as a high-profile factoid about Scientology, doesn't it seem reasonable to address it in the main Scientology article? As it stands, Xenu is treated only in a short sub-section of the part about the OT levels, well into the article. I'm not persuaded that is "way overblown," especially in light of Xenu's fame (e.g., South Park). BTfromLA 00:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I mean simply overblown in the beliefs and practices section because, as regards Scientologists, it a small part of the experience of a small percentage. In the Controversy section he has more significance as the meme. For most Scientologists he is completely unknown and for the rest, part of something they audit for a few days perhaps and then are done with, assuming that he is on OT III. --Justanother 03:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] religioustolerance dot org

I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article).

Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.

Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Wikipedia since links in Wikipedia are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on Spamdexing for more on this).

You can see all the links by going to this this "Search web links" page. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia's external links guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at WikiProject Spam with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional information beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per WP:EL, links that don't add additional information should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").

Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --A. B. 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space opera in Scientology doctrine

Space opera in Scientology doctrine is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deathwatch List

In the space of one evening, there are now four pages potentially sentenced to death in various ways:

Have I missed any others? AndroidCat 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Scientology_9683.html"