Talk:Scientology Finance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology Finance article.
Article policies
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.
Scientology Portal
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] PAY EVERYTHING UP TO A DATE ALWAYS and no further

What does this mean "PAY EVERYTHING UP TO A DATE ALWAYS and no further" - does this mean that 1) the bills are to be paid on the last possible day, or 2) that all bills are to be paid that were due before an arbitrary date? This source [1] suggests that (2) is what Hubbard meant. So you might want to clarify the article text. --Tilman 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noncompliant

It seems like there are quite a few problems. The article is only sourced by some quotes from Hubbard, a primary source. There is no evidence that these are really the policies that Scientology organizations follow. I get my Internet service from Earthlink, a company founded by a Scientologist, and I have been very happy with their customer service and have never seen any evidence of these "policies" being followed by them. Steve Dufour 05:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Earthlink isn't run on scientology policies. This was only done for a very short time at the beginning. Sky Dayton, when it comes to his money, prefers "wog" management. --Tilman 05:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Then there is a least one Scientology organization that does not follow these policies. I would not be surprized if some did, however I don't think there can be a WP article saying that they do without more evidence. Steve Dufour 05:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Steve, a Scientology organization is an organization affiliated with the Church of Scientology International, Inc. Earthlink is a private business.

Where did you get this idea?--Fahrenheit451 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I worked for Earthlink for a while and there is a lot of Scientology influence in the way they do things. However, if there is a definition of "Scientology organizations" and it doesn't meet that I have no problem with that. The article still does not back up its first statement that these policies are followed by any organization. They might be, but no evidence from secondary sources is given. Steve Dufour 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion allegation

I removed that template as it is utter NONSENSE. There is no way it even comes close. --Fahrenheit451 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to Steve's statements of faulty reasoning [2].--Fahrenheit451 20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is original research since it just quotes some things Hubbard said. There are no secondary sources which establish notability. The information could, maybe, be put into Hubbard's article if you think it is important. Steve Dufour 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Is "Scientology Finance" a proper noun? Nothing in the article claims that it is and from googling, I haven't seen anything to claim that it is. Assuming that it is not, this article should be renamed to Finances of Scientology or Scientology financial methods or Scientology financial policies or something ... but this name isn't a very good one. --BigDT 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Misou added templates without discussion

Misou needs to discuss the addition of a template an article. I am removing it as there was no discussion.--Fahrenheit451 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should take action and make this into an article. The only thing I see you doing is complaining about this or that. This thing is just not convincing. I understand it is your baby somehow, but then make it into an article. Misou 03:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
As you just yourself noted, there is NO reference at all to the article and your external links do nothing to back it up and are anonymous. Right now the whole article is a violation of WP:V, WP:ATTRIB and WP:NOR. Misou 03:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Misou, I am not you. Please do not confuse our identities. What is anonymous? Please stop speaking in generalities and be specific.--Fahrenheit451 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)