User talk:24.82.203.201

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Trolling in Talk:Church of Scientology

That was obvious, blatant trolling, which is a type of vandalism. That's why I reverted it as I did. --GoodDamon 17:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. Trolling would be to go to the talk page for Cat and say Dogs a better pet. This is like going to the Enron talk page and complaining because there wasn't any discussion of Enron's massive, blatant crimes, and overwhelming criminal nature. Wikipedia documents examples of these crimes such as Operation Snow White, but the scientology article itself is curiously mute on unflattering topics. Your actions are bordering on abusive. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you think you're doing? You're going to the talk page and describing the Church of Scientology as a "criminal organization" as if that is an established fact, when it's obviously a heavily disputed charge. You are adding nothing to the improvement of the article, you are only trying to make people angry with unsubtle inflammatory statements. Stop it. If you'd like to discuss the article, please do so. But what you are doing is trolling, not discussing. If you persist, you may be blocked. --GoodDamon 19:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
And as for the Enron comparison, might I point out that the controversies about Enron and the controversies about Scientology are both there in their respective articles already? --GoodDamon 19:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, I'm making a true statement AND offering to back it up with fact. You're *lying* if you say it's disputed. The courts have ruled it. I don't care that it's inflammatory, you should be old enough to respond appropriately without knee-jerk reactions.
I think it's you who's cruising for a banning. You're a registered user who should know better, refusing to discuss something and falling back on reverts is harassment. My criticisms and comments may be strongly worded, but they should simply be answered if they're so-obviously wrong.
  • You* will put back the discussion you reverted, and your comment will explain that you overstepped your bounds. If you refuse, or answer any of my edits with anything other than discussion I will petition to have you banned. Your accusations of trolling will not be accepted. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I most certainly won't. That wasn't the start of a discussion, it was trolling, however you slice it. Look... I know there's evidence that the CoS is a shady organization. That's in the article already. The article Scientology controversy covers those issues in great detail. However, insisting that it be called a "criminal organization," and that we somehow must discuss your POV pushing in detail instead of discussing actual issues pertinent to the article is trollish behavior, even if you don't intend it to be such. The current phrasing in the intro is neutral in tone, as is required by Wikipedia. The details of the Church's scandals are present in the article already, and expressed in a neutral tone allowing readers to make their own decisions about what the evidence represents. Calling it a "criminal organization" in the intro would not only be POV pushing, but would also be untrue, as there are plenty of countries where the CoS is not considered a criminal organization, and has not been found to be such by the courts. Read the article. Then read the Scientology article. Then read the Scientology controversy. And so on... It's all there already, laid out as an encyclopedia should be. If you have a specific concern, such as a reliable source for information that isn't currently there, bring that up - or better yet, be bold and make the addition yourself. But don't expect inflammatory "discussions" to be left in place when their only possible purpose is to annoy people. --GoodDamon 23:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If you revert something without explanation, you become the vandal. Your explanation of your actions here is what I expect to see. I'm not addicted to the words 'criminal organization' specifically, but the only time the word 'Criminal' appears on the page it's in a quote from Hubbard about a world without criminals. There are links to the controversy page, but much lower in the article. If not 'criminal', then how about at least putting 'much criticized' in the header and linking to the further information. It's not POV to suggest that the article should contain the most important details - that the church and it's founders are entangled in a legal scandal that is, by most accounts, true. What is really more important, a list of scientology centers, or the fact that they've been convicted of crimes, if not in all countries, at least in their primary country. The entire history section is devoid of conspiracy to commit murder. That's not a little detail. As such, it's not trolling to make bold claims - that page needs serious work before it's an accurate representation of the CoS, or a repository of what 'the man of the street' would consider the most important information. If this was the first article you read you'd have a very incorrect view of the church.
Thanks for your reply. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent). Now you're talking. Calling it a "criminal organization" in the intro is not going to work, but calling it "much criticized" or "controversial," and making references to reliable sources for material about its controversies would be just fine. For the record, I agree with you; the current article is mostly a whitewash. It should reference the controversies earlier, and in a more straightforward manner. My only issue with what you posted was the attacking tone of it that read like it was calculated to make people angry. --GoodDamon 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't calculated to NOT make them angry. I expect adults to use words to defend their views. This is the internet, not kindergarten.
"Much criticized" misses the word 'crime'. There's a big difference between being criticized and committing actual crimes and being found guilty. "much criticized for it's criminal record", or something seems much more accurate. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It should have been calculated to "NOT make them angry." You're right, this isn't kindergarten. We don't need to verbally defend ourselves. The onus is on the attacker not to attack. Please see my talk page for my final thoughts on all this. --GoodDamon 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)