Talk:Body thetan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Older comments
I amended this page on Dec 6, 2005 to more accurately communicate the term.
Much of the information in the previous version of the article was inaccurate, misleading and/or irrelevant.
In my opinion, such an article should not exist in the public domain. But since there will be one, it is best the information in it is accurate.
- An OT VI
For the archived deletion debate for this article, OT3 and Teegeeack see Talk:Body Thetans/delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:36, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I completely agree that this article should not be here. First of all, there is no published source of information, primary source of information, available. Without a primary source of information (originating source) any information about it is from secondary and tertiary sources. All of that secondary and tertiary information relies on unpublished (often stolen) primary information. Is this really what wikipedia is going to be about? How Individuals and groups commit crimes and post their results here ? And even assuming such secondary source know what they are talking about (HA!) the information is only opinion. In the main secondary sources such as Xenu.net intend to destroy Scientology. It would be foolish to accept thier opinion as "the real deal". Terryeo 17:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion toward deleting this article
There is no primary, published source available. The Church of Scientology publishes no literature about it, yet it is the Church which originates this idea, according to the secondary sources in the article. WP:V#Verifiability, not truth states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." A couple of secondary sources make comment but is that enough to create an article on? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." Do those secondary sources of information present real information, trusted information? Their quality of information is not all that good, less good that "unimpeachable" (WP:V). But most importantly We should delete this article because the secondary sources cite themselves sources of information which has been contested by the source information, Scientology. It has brought lawsuits variously against the secondary sources of information that this article talks about. Obviously the Church is not commenting on the validity of this information. Therefore this applies: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_anarchy "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, WIkipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." Because Scientology's original information is unpublished, has been involved in lawsuits, etc. it isn't a source for an encyclopedic article. It might be a good article as a newspaper expose' but not an encyclopedic article. Let's remove it, what do you all say? Terryeo 18:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I say keep, it is a central scientology belief. Lets just work to make the article better and well referenced. Raymond Hill 17:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I can tell you it is not central as I can tell you Space Opera is not central to Scientology. But why take my word for it? Why don't you read some professional opinions of what is Central to Scientology? Doctors of Divinity, Well known Clergy, Persons who testify as professionals to governments and even to the United Nations were asked by the Church of Scientology to give their professional opinions about Scientology. [1] None of them say it is central.Terryeo 20:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- "We should delete this article because the secondary sources cite themselves sources of information which has been contested by the source information, Scientology." -- could you even ask for more solid proof than that, that Terryeo still doesn't understand (or chooses not to understand) what Wikipedia is about? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, as usual your response attempts to ignore the main question. The question is, "Are there verifiable informations about this subject" and the answer is almost no. The answer is not quite no because an expose' type article could be crafted from the sources of information available. But those sources are not "unimpeachable" sources, instead those sources involve themselves with fringe and not mainstream information. Rather than published in books, copyrighted informations, those sources of information use legally contested, even stolen documents. That is the informational base of this article. That is why I suggest the article be deleted. There are no primary source documents. There are a couple of secondary sources of dubious quality. It doesn't meet the standards of quality WP:NPOV calls for. Feldspar says, "terryeo doesn't see it but that is the reason it should be an article. I say, "Feldspar, your infatuation with the fringe subject belongs in newspapers and not doing edits of encyclopeida" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terryeo (talk • contribs) .
Terryeo 20:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Feldspar says, "terryeo doesn't see it but that is the reason it should be an article. No, Feldspar says exactly what he said above: anyone arguing that an article should be deleted because it has false information, and furthermore arguing that all that is needed to "prove" the information is false is that it "has been contested", does not comprehend Wikipedia. You cite policies, but you cite them in ways which make it awfully clear that you never read more of them than the title and perhaps the first line or two. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sheesh, did I not sign my above post earlier? Anyway Feldspar, as usual you replies are abusive, what good does your phrase, "does not comprehend Wikipedia" do you? I am saying there is no primary source information about this subject. I have said it several times. Here, I'll say it again, there is no Primary Source information about this article. The single public document before the public is before the public because the Judge to whom Scientology appealed that it be taken from the public eye, refused because he considered it to be a "fairy tale". lol. And on that basis you and others are creating a fable about it being a real world situation, happened 75 million years ago, oh hum, central to scientology and all the rest of the fallacy. Oh hum. Terryeo 20:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Abusive"? You may not like it being pointed out that you clearly haven't read many of the policies whose titles you are citing, but please explain to me how it was phrased any more abusively than your own "Why is it necessary with you people to point out that simple, straightforeward statemetns like: "Term, Topic, Context" mean 1. Term. 2. Topic, 3. Context." [2]? You certainly didn't worry that you were being abusive in informing other people that they weren't abiding by Wikipedia:Introductions. Exactly how do you look at what you said to other editors there about what you thought was their ignorance of policy (though as we've seen, it was your understanding of the guideline that was flawed) and find it less "abusive"? As for the rest of your post, it quite frankly reaches new lows. At this point you well know that Warren McShane, as Scientology's witness, testified in court to the fact that the doctrines of Scientology included "Xemu and the volcanoes and ... the great catastrophe that occurred 75 million years ago".[3] Your idea that you can pass it off, at this point, as a "fable" created by others, just beggars belief. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sheesh, did I not sign my above post earlier? Anyway Feldspar, as usual you replies are abusive, what good does your phrase, "does not comprehend Wikipedia" do you? I am saying there is no primary source information about this subject. I have said it several times. Here, I'll say it again, there is no Primary Source information about this article. The single public document before the public is before the public because the Judge to whom Scientology appealed that it be taken from the public eye, refused because he considered it to be a "fairy tale". lol. And on that basis you and others are creating a fable about it being a real world situation, happened 75 million years ago, oh hum, central to scientology and all the rest of the fallacy. Oh hum. Terryeo 20:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Feldspar says, "terryeo doesn't see it but that is the reason it should be an article. No, Feldspar says exactly what he said above: anyone arguing that an article should be deleted because it has false information, and furthermore arguing that all that is needed to "prove" the information is false is that it "has been contested", does not comprehend Wikipedia. You cite policies, but you cite them in ways which make it awfully clear that you never read more of them than the title and perhaps the first line or two. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-
I understand your position, Feldspar is that you don't wish the article to be deleted. I again point out there is no primary source of information about the subject of the article. Terryeo 00:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- My position is that you have yet to put forth a good case for the article to be deleted. I understand your position that you think you have, but I also understand that your thinking so is based on your not understanding the policies of Wikipedia to the degree that you think you do. For instance, can you now, after it's been explained to you several times, show your understanding of why Fleischmann and Pons' cold fusion experiments are not "original research"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Feldspar, you consistantly don't reply to the points I bring up, consistently side with persons who say they know any scientology datum has been debunked many times and consistently attempt to argue instead of working toward good articles. You have made your position on this matter clear. I have made mine clear. You notice my posts don't say things like, "You don't understand ...." and don't use words like "slime" etc. Terryeo 01:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your opinion. To correct you on just a few of many points: I very often do reply to the points you bring up, only to see you change the subject or repeat some mistaken notion of yours yet again even though you've already been alerted that it's incorrect.[4] I work towards good articles, but much too often I have to interrupt the actual work in order to deal with irrelevancies or sometimes outright falsehoods[5] being brought up on the talk page. You have indeed made your position clear but you have also made it clear that your position is based on Wikipedia policies that you don't necessarily understand (for instance, I have to think that if you could have answered my question about Fleischmann and Pons, you would have; to avoid replying to a direct question like that and in the same post complain that I don't reply to the points you make would be rather hypocritical, don't you think?) I notice that your posts have never used the actual specific five-letter word "slime" but I also can point to at least two examples where you knowingly and deliberately told falsehoods about other editors. What makes you think lying about other editors is less objectionable? As for the claim that you "don't say things like 'You don't understand'", I doubt that's even true on the technicality (technically not available to you, since you said "like") of never having actually started a sentence with those three specific words. Why, look, here we go: "Why is it necessary with you people to point out that simple, straightforeward statemetns like: "Term, Topic, Context" mean 1. Term. 2. Topic, 3. Context."[6] Gee, I don't know; why did you consider it necessary to point out your mistaken interpretation of Wikipedia:Introductions to "us people"? Surely you weren't trying to tell us that we didn't understand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Your posts suggests arguement but doesn't reply toward the issue raise here. Terryeo 16:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you come up with a valid reason that deletion should be considered for this article, it will be replied to. What you have presented so far is not it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Who would reply to it? You address none of the issues I raise. Should I raise yet more issues which you can then, additionally, ignore? Terryeo 19:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Your posts suggests arguement but doesn't reply toward the issue raise here. Terryeo 16:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion. To correct you on just a few of many points: I very often do reply to the points you bring up, only to see you change the subject or repeat some mistaken notion of yours yet again even though you've already been alerted that it's incorrect.[4] I work towards good articles, but much too often I have to interrupt the actual work in order to deal with irrelevancies or sometimes outright falsehoods[5] being brought up on the talk page. You have indeed made your position clear but you have also made it clear that your position is based on Wikipedia policies that you don't necessarily understand (for instance, I have to think that if you could have answered my question about Fleischmann and Pons, you would have; to avoid replying to a direct question like that and in the same post complain that I don't reply to the points you make would be rather hypocritical, don't you think?) I notice that your posts have never used the actual specific five-letter word "slime" but I also can point to at least two examples where you knowingly and deliberately told falsehoods about other editors. What makes you think lying about other editors is less objectionable? As for the claim that you "don't say things like 'You don't understand'", I doubt that's even true on the technicality (technically not available to you, since you said "like") of never having actually started a sentence with those three specific words. Why, look, here we go: "Why is it necessary with you people to point out that simple, straightforeward statemetns like: "Term, Topic, Context" mean 1. Term. 2. Topic, 3. Context."[6] Gee, I don't know; why did you consider it necessary to point out your mistaken interpretation of Wikipedia:Introductions to "us people"? Surely you weren't trying to tell us that we didn't understand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Verifiability
It is quite clear to me that there are no validly verifiable sources to support claims made by this article. If there are verifiable sources, then how is it verifiable? --JimmyT 04:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- WP:V "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher."
- --JimmyT 04:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The references given are David S. Touretzky. Is he a reputable publisher? --JimmyT 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Websites count as publishing, but yes, he has written paper books too, as well as magazine articles. He is quite reputable, as you can see on the article David_S._Touretzky. What problems did you have with this article? Every statement made in it can be traced to the sources, and Touretzky wasn't the source, there's also a citation to xenu.net. wikipediatrix 05:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I see that he is a critic of Scientology and, as I do not normally read texts written by critics who are also not experts on a particular subject, I am assuming his writings are not NPOV towards the subject. --JimmyT 05:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. That doesn't mean sources have to be - does the Nazi article only use sources that are neutral about Nazism? (and who's really neutral about Nazis, anyway?) Most investigative journalism against cults are by their very nature critical. That doesn't make them unfactual. wikipediatrix 05:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean this article is POV because only Touretzky's view is presented? --JimmyT 05:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- That didn't answer my question. wikipediatrix 16:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- You didn't ask me a question, you merely presented your argument. And my contention is clearly stated above. --JimmyT 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- That didn't answer my question. wikipediatrix 16:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean this article is POV because only Touretzky's view is presented? --JimmyT 05:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. That doesn't mean sources have to be - does the Nazi article only use sources that are neutral about Nazism? (and who's really neutral about Nazis, anyway?) Most investigative journalism against cults are by their very nature critical. That doesn't make them unfactual. wikipediatrix 05:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I see that he is a critic of Scientology and, as I do not normally read texts written by critics who are also not experts on a particular subject, I am assuming his writings are not NPOV towards the subject. --JimmyT 05:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Websites count as publishing, but yes, he has written paper books too, as well as magazine articles. He is quite reputable, as you can see on the article David_S._Touretzky. What problems did you have with this article? Every statement made in it can be traced to the sources, and Touretzky wasn't the source, there's also a citation to xenu.net. wikipediatrix 05:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, didn't CoS validate the sources by suing for copyright infringement? Unless the documents were *copies*, they could have only sued for trademark infringement or disclosure of trade secrets, right? Anyways, we have Touretzky's documents, we have the legal records for the Lerma case, the Spaink case, Spaink's publications, Margery Wakefield's publications, Jon Atack's work, the Fishman Affidavit, the Vorlan pack, etc. We're well over only "one" source at this point, we have multiple sources which corroborate each other... Anyways, I also *do* realize that some editors/researchers may be forbidden by their creeds from reading the above-mentioned materials, but the materials are certainly out there for people to find (and thus, meet WP:V). WP:V does not have an exception for specific creeds and their access to sources, which can be a problem. Ronabop 07:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I like Jesse Prince's account too: «Looking for more BTs is one of the few principles of Scientology tech that seems to be consistent throughout the years.» [7] He was long enough a scientologist to be credible. Raymond Hill 00:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Is your contention based upon statements from verifiable sources or is that yours and other Wikipedians OR? --JimmyT 07:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also, this discussion has been superceded into POV. All the sources you state are POV sources (critics of Scientology) --JimmyT 07:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- If the documents exposed by Scientology critics were not authentic, then RTC would have no basis to sue for copyright infringement. The existence of those lawsuits demonstrates that RTC (and by extension CoS) do believe the leaked documents are veridical. Therefore, since RTC claims they're authentic and so do the critics, there is no POV dispute here. Both sides explicitly state that the documents are real: the critics say so in their publications, and RTC say so in their legal filings. --FOo 07:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The available pieces of source texts, best as I can tell, have no POV disputes about them. The CoS and the critics both contend the sources being used are real. How those texts are interpreted is another matter. Ronabop 08:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Please cite a verifiable source which presents any statement by RTC that the document is authentic, as I only see your contention. --JimmyT 08:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I don't think the lawsuit was over one document. What is the source of your statement or is it original research? --JimmyT 08:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The CoS verified the OTIII sources as authentic. In court. For contrast, see the issues over "gay jesus" debates, where the CoS has argued that the sources used were not authentic. The lawsuit was not fuzzy, it was explicit on what was copyright infringement, what was libel, and what portions were parts of each. It helps to spend some time learning how "legal tech" (to coin a phrase) works. Ronabop 11:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Provide the reference. Does it clearly present any statement by the church that the document is authentic. I don't want any further reasoning or argument (OR), I only want an unambiguous reference. --JimmyT 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- See, this is what I mean by inadequate hatting. Someone who didn't understand Wikipedia's policies on sources (gee, can we guess who that is?) told you "Any information that the Church doesn't willingly publish to any person in the world is not primary source information and they can't use it. And since a Wikipedia editor inserting his own personal analysis/opinion/judgement of a subject into the article itself is something they call 'original research', you'll clearly be able to use that phrase to attack any reasoning on any subject coming from any editor on any talk page." sorry, wrong on several counts, and you're better off learning it on your own than learning it from someone who doesn't have it right himself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh really Feldspar, you can't even define the term and the article certainly doesn't and you are blowing off about adequate hatting? The article doesn't have a definition, maybe 1/1,000,000 of the population has any interest in it and maybe 1/1000 of those people know the meaning of the term. It has no definition. The only definition would be found in certain Church of Scientology, confidential documents. The term is mentioned in the now-public Xenu document with a lot of other fairy tale. Why not an article on "hyper-drive" next? Its a similar science fiction concept. LOLTerryeo 05:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- See, this is what I mean by inadequate hatting. Someone who didn't understand Wikipedia's policies on sources (gee, can we guess who that is?) told you "Any information that the Church doesn't willingly publish to any person in the world is not primary source information and they can't use it. And since a Wikipedia editor inserting his own personal analysis/opinion/judgement of a subject into the article itself is something they call 'original research', you'll clearly be able to use that phrase to attack any reasoning on any subject coming from any editor on any talk page." sorry, wrong on several counts, and you're better off learning it on your own than learning it from someone who doesn't have it right himself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Minor note: there IS an article on hyperdrive here on wikipedia. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program. --Xyzzyplugh 07:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The issue is verifiability and POV, not me or my hatting. As I said in my opinion previously, this discussion is superceded and continued below. And in my "hatting," personal attacks are not merely unproductive for Wikipedia, I suggest Antaeus forget about me and my hatting and focus on the issues at hand: verifiability and POV. --JimmyT 09:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, until you actually understand the policies you're talking about, your inadequate hatting actually is relevant. Were you under the impression that no matter how badly a contributor is misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting policy (such as, for instance, claiming that the only possible primary source for the Church of Scientology's doctrines on body thetans would be materials the Church would prefer to keep secret) that it's a personal attack to note that? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'f you'd like to discuss Verifiability then please do so. If you'd like to make a comment about me or my understanding of policy then please do so on my talk page. If such comments are directly related to the verifiability issue raised here then you can make the comment here. And please answer the message I have sent to you over the last few days. --JimmyT 11:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If you'd like to discuss verifiability then make it worth the time to do so. Erroneously declaring that you "don't want any further reasoning or argument" because that would be (in your misunderstanding) "OR", original research, does not suggest to anyone that investing time into answering your belligerence would be anything other than time wasted. Speaking of time wasted, when you talk about answering "the" message you have sent to me, which of the nine you left in the past three days do you mean? User talk pages are like car horns, you know: they are for communicating with others. You may see people employing them as instruments of annoyance, in order to harass others into compliance, but that is poor behavior that should not be emulated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] POV
As a result of the previous discussion on verifiability, I am adding the tag: POV check to the article according to WP:DP: "Article is biased or has lots of POV | List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. | {{npov}} or {{POV check}}" --JimmyT 05:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- For a brand-new user, JimmyT, you certainly seem familiar with Wikipedia. Hmmmm...... wikipediatrix 16:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, I was thinking the same thing. Seems to know his way around and seems to frequent an awfully familiar set of articles in order to display some awfully familiar misconceptions... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- It could be someone who simply doesn't want this topic associated with another username. Having multiple usernames isn't itself against the rules; what's against the rules is sockpuppetry, or using a second username to "agree" with oneself or present the illusion of a widespread view. There was an arbitration case a while ago, WP:RFAr/Ciz, dealing with a user who had created a second account in order not to associate himself with a controversial topic, but whose cover was administratively blown when his actions on that topic became abusive. Suffice it to say that people with multiple accounts to separate themselves from a topic need to be extra careful because a sock-check will blow their cover. --FOo 05:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- It could also be the JimmyT sees the logic to the arguement. The only publication that mentions "body thetans" is the Xenu document which is public because the Judge who refused to remove it from the public called it a "fairy tale". This article has one and only source of published information, that document. There is no other source of information. No one even knows what a damn "body thetan" really means. With no primary source (except the fairy tale) and no secondary or tertiary sources the article can be nothing but OR, published from a single document which in turn is published from a single source. And, that source has never commented on it. It could even be argued to be violating WP:NPOV since it cites one and only one point of view. It violates WP:V since only one fairy tale mentions "body thetan". It viloates WP:NOR since it is either a fairy tale or original research by one individual (Hubbard) who never published to the public about it. Get on board guys, its a silly thing to worry about. Terryeo 18:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- It could be someone who simply doesn't want this topic associated with another username. Having multiple usernames isn't itself against the rules; what's against the rules is sockpuppetry, or using a second username to "agree" with oneself or present the illusion of a widespread view. There was an arbitration case a while ago, WP:RFAr/Ciz, dealing with a user who had created a second account in order not to associate himself with a controversial topic, but whose cover was administratively blown when his actions on that topic became abusive. Suffice it to say that people with multiple accounts to separate themselves from a topic need to be extra careful because a sock-check will blow their cover. --FOo 05:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, I was thinking the same thing. Seems to know his way around and seems to frequent an awfully familiar set of articles in order to display some awfully familiar misconceptions... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am brand new, but hatted by some people who have experience with Wikipedia. :) Have you been able to provide alternative POV's for this article yet? --JimmyT 08:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- "hatted", eh? Guess that pretty much reveals your own Scientologist POV right there. And who, pray tell, "hatted" you? wikipediatrix 14:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- My recent hatting by Scientologists indicates that personal attacks are unaccaptable in Wikipedia, I can tell you that much Wikipedia tricks. --JimmyT 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you'll get your own chance to sink or swim; I for one am favorably impressed by your admission that you had other people, er, "hatting" you on Wikipedia. Just be aware, however, that they may be mistaken or otherwise wrong about how Wikipedia operates -- you saw that on Engram already, when Terryeo kept insisting that the disambiguation page needed a dictionary definition and the relevant policy pages instead specifically said "dictionary definitions don't belong [on a disambiguation page]." So try to keep an open mind, and that way you won't be limited in your potential as a Wikipedia editor to only that of the people who hatted you. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concern but "my fear" isn't what regulates my action. This is not the dark ages :) --JimmyT 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else who made some reference to your "fear"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're free to make any guesses as you like, but it is all irrelevant to productive discussion of the verifiability and POV issues being discussed. --JimmyT 09:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- All right, then let me be less gentle: was your sudden bringing up of the subject of your "fear" and whether it "regulates" your action intended to make any sort of sense to us? Or is it intended to be a deliberate non-sequitur? I agree that the subject of your fear is very irrelevant to productive discussion, but since you're the one who changed the subject to it, it's your problem to correct. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're free to make any guesses as you like, but it is all irrelevant to productive discussion of the verifiability and POV issues being discussed. --JimmyT 09:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else who made some reference to your "fear"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concern but "my fear" isn't what regulates my action. This is not the dark ages :) --JimmyT 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- "hatted", eh? Guess that pretty much reveals your own Scientologist POV right there. And who, pray tell, "hatted" you? wikipediatrix 14:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- In reply to your POV check: what part of the article doesn't seem factual to you, specifically? Raymond Hill 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disputing factual accuracy is another issue which should be discussed within it's own section preferably ==Disputed== as outlined by Wikipedia's policy recommendations, but that isn't why the POV tag is used in this case. {{POV check}} is being used because the article contains only POV. --JimmyT 09:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Take my word for it. This article can not become a NPOV article because the only definition extant on the planet is within confidential (and this means unpublished) documents which are carefully controlled by the Chruch of Scientology. With no primary source of information and with only one document that ever mentions the topic, and with many beanbrain xenu.net and clambake.net secondary sources, this topic can never become NPOV. LOL. Terryeo 05:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you have access to these sources then please feel free to use them to improve this article! If you don't, then please don't speculate about them. RTC and "critics" have already agreed to the authenticity of the "leaked" sources that inform this article, so there doesn't seem to be a dispute about those, unless possibly from someone prepared to refute RTC's claim to copyright. But more sources are always worthwhile! --FOo 07:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't speculate, Foofoo. I told you. You are free to research your Foo nose off about it but if you do, you'll see what I said makes sense. Terryeo 18:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Usage of the POV tag is clearly dictated on WP:DP. And it is impossible for me, or anyone else even if a Scientologist, to offer any primary sources as entreated. --JimmyT 09:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Then we have to go from the (again, undisputedly authentic) sources available. The claim that "there are no primary sources" is simply false as described above; the sources are already cited. It's unfortunate that RTC/CoS doesn't wish to discuss the matter openly ... but, absent their substantive comment, we are obliged to go with what we have. If "critics" cite sources and Scientologists don't, and the article represents that fact honestly, then Wikipedia policy has been obeyed. Wanna fix it? Cite your sources. --FOo 10:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- The article is still POV and will be forever POV as far as I see. --JimmyT 10:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- If you really think so, fix it! The approach needed has already been described. Just remember that neutrality doesn't mean showcasing your opinions (or your group's doctrines) any more than it means showcasing someone else's. The best approach is simply to provide the information that your sources describe, and to cite those sources. --FOo 10:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Foo Foo, let me give you a clue and save you some trouble, okay? The Church of Scientology has a specific policy about how to publically reply to and handle people who take the sort of assertive, "PROVE IT TO ME!" approach you take here. I am not the Church, I am willing to aquaint you with what you will encounter. If you are actually willing to understand their policy and wish to know what it is, I would be willing to spell it out for you. It would save you a good deal of time, effort and trouble if you did understand, but because you don't seem to responsively reply, I won't fill our discussion page with information unless you ask. Have a nice day. Terryeo 18:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I am not authorized access to any such sources if they do exist and for that reason my involvement here can only be to ensure application of appropriate of Wikipedia policy. The article is still POV and theres nothing I can honestly do about it. --JimmyT 10:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- If you really think so, fix it! The approach needed has already been described. Just remember that neutrality doesn't mean showcasing your opinions (or your group's doctrines) any more than it means showcasing someone else's. The best approach is simply to provide the information that your sources describe, and to cite those sources. --FOo 10:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- And until other editors contribute to the discussion herein, there will be no further talk from me tonight. Have a good night :) --JimmyT 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Wikipedia policy doesn't make exceptions for Scientology. We go by the same rules here that we go by anywhere else. Cite your sources is one of those rules. If you aren't willing to cite sources on this subject, then you aren't contributing usefully here. Chanting "POV" over and over again isn't going to help, folks -- in order to have a substantive disagreement you need to cite sources. --FOo 05:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge?
Should this article be merged with Thetan? Rich Farmbrough 23:06 1 March 2006 (UTC).
- I don't think it needs to be merged. Vivaldi 09:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really see a compelling case for a merge either. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Don't delete article
L. Ron Hubbard's own son wrote a book about his father's religion. in it, he describes much of these beliefs. Also, After arresting many Scientologists for wire tapping government agencies and tax evasion, writings were confiscated. Some writings confiscated described these very beliefs. There is plenty of evidence to prove that this article is accurate. Evidence taken from the Scientologists themselves. Only a Scientologist would want this article removed, as it brings to light much of the insanity of the church of Scientology. (anonomous user 70.241.243.18 posted this paragraph. Terryeo 14:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC))
The article is dumb and should be deleted. There is no primary source of information for the article. The only sources of information for the article are unpublished, seondary sources which when put together create a sort of "maybe body thetan means ....." Which is real poor encyclopedic writing, it verges on newspaper expose' writing. The article is dumb, has no source of information and should be deleted. Terryeo 14:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, hmmm, hmmm, hmmmm.... wow, Terryeo, this might be a new record for you. I'm not sure you've ever managed a post before without even one correct sentence, but you managed it this time. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
